BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Canterbury City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Leeds City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Nottingham City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Reading Borough Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Lords message (21 May) relating to the Bill considered.
	Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Transport for London Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 11 July at 4 o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prisoners (Training and Education)

Peter Aldous: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on improving training and skills of adult prisoners to improve their employment chances after the end of their sentence and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Paul Maynard: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on improving training and skills of adult prisoners to improve their employment chances after the end of their sentence and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Crispin Blunt: I worked closely with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning during the preparation of the new offender learning strategy published last year, and officials from both Departments have worked closely on implementation. I fully recognise the importance of learning and training in making prisoners more employable, and my officials and I are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to provide enhanced employment support via the Work programme.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. HMP Blundeston in my constituency is doing excellent work to provide prisoners with employment skills. It is seeking to bring in work, but faces a dilemma in that it does not wish to take contracts away from local employers. Will the Minister visit Blundeston to see that work and to discuss with the governor and staff what can be done to meet that particular challenge?

Crispin Blunt: I wish to visit Blundeston to see a number of examples of good practice, not just those to do with work in prisons. We have developed a code of practice to demonstrate how we will work fairly to address concerns about unfair competition and protecting local jobs. It is vital that the growth in prison work add to the UK supply chain and increase rather than reduce employment opportunities for law-abiding citizens while aiding the rehabilitation of offenders.

Paul Maynard: Many education providers these days use online platforms and tools to provide education in prison and would like to do so more often using both better internet connections and better wi-fi internet connection. Obviously, there are security concerns about making such connections available. Will the Minister explain a little further what he could do to encourage such provision to enhance rehabilitation opportunities?

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because, as he says, it is essential to maintain security while enabling learning and skills to be relevant in prisons. Prisoners’ educational internet access will now be via the virtual campus that is being installed where it is technically possible to do so in all adult prisons in England. It offers very secure access to online tools and resources that have been through thorough quality assurance and rigorous security checks, and has the potential to be developed so that prisoners’ in-cell time as well as their out-of-cell time could be much more productive than it is today.

Lindsay Roy: Is it not the case that despite good intentions, the Government are no closer to making work in prisons the norm than they were two years ago?

Crispin Blunt: That is complete nonsense. There has been a culture change across the whole of the prison system, and prison governors are stepping up to the plate and driving the agenda forward. At the same time, we have taken an enormous amount of trouble to put in place a code of practice and the necessary policy underpinnings so that we can take work in prisons to the maximum level that we can achieve. There is a profound change under way involving substantial and substantive work and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that endeavour.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister will also recognise that issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as mental health, have a huge impact on employability. How far is the Ministry of Justice prepared to work with—perhaps I should declare an interest, or at least a potential interest—the future police and crime commissioners to make sure that there is proper co-ordination of all the services necessary to get people back into work?

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the integrated offender management that already happens in the case of prolific offenders, who tend to be drug addicted. Their support or treatment will be related, to a degree, to how they engage with their offender managers and their drug treatment providers in the community, which involves police, probation, health and local authority services all working together. That rather obvious, sensible example of integrated offender management is getting much wider traction across the whole offender management system. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: it is the way forward when all those agencies operate together. That is the purpose of all the work that we are doing with other Government Departments to advance that agenda.

European Court of Human Rights

David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received on the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Kenneth Clarke: None.

David Ruffley: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that detailed reply. He will know that there is concern, certainly on the Government Benches, that the European Court of Human Rights gives insufficient weight to the decisions of national courts, and that in addition, given the backlog of more than 150,000 cases, the Court is not devoting its entire time and attention to truly serious abuses of human rights. In that context, what are the Government doing to ensure that votes of national Parliaments and decisions by national courts are better taken into account by the European Court?

Kenneth Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We addressed that during our chairmanship of the Council of Europe. We had a conference at Brighton of all 47 member states and produced the Brighton declaration. Our considerable achievement there was not very widely reported because, not surprisingly, the media regarded it as a footnote to the Abu Qatada case which was in the newspapers at the time. Forty-seven countries agreed that we should have a greater margin of appreciation, to use the jargon, and that more regard should be paid to those decisions of the courts of nation states which had obviously addressed their obligations under the convention. That will have a considerable impact on future cases.

William McCrea: Is it not long overdue that the Government move to ensure that the courts of the United Kingdom, rather than the European Court, have supremacy in the area of human rights, including protection of Christian liberties and freedoms?

Kenneth Clarke: We are taken to the Court much less than other members and we lose only about 2%. Sometimes that 2% includes cases where there is widespread support here for the decision, such as the holding of DNA and other information belonging to people who have never been convicted of a criminal offence, which was a recent judgment. The convention still has a very important role to play across Europe. It is hugely significant in the 47 member states and it enables standards to be applied in places all the way from Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan across to us and Iceland. We have always been subject to the rule of law. We have always bound ourselves under the convention to accept the judgments. These are the standards that we all agreed upon after the second world war, which were not challenged in this country till 10 or 15 years ago, when some judgments here began to annoy sections of the media.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Paul Mahoney on his election as the UK judge to the European Court of Human Rights, and does he share my satisfaction that the new judge is committed to ensuring that the principles of subsidiarity
	are held high in the Court—for example, in relation to the right of individual countries to decide issues relating to national religion?

Kenneth Clarke: I personally disapprove of a parliamentary vote on the appointment of judges, but that is the system that has prevailed there since 1947. Fortunately, the British put forward three excellently qualified candidates for the judgeship, so I congratulate Mr Mahoney on his election and I am sure he will make a very considerable contribution.

Sadiq Khan: I am sure the Justice Secretary will agree that it would be inappropriate for him as a member of the Executive or me as a Member of the legislature to interfere with the appointment of judges in the UK. In the light of that and of his last answer, what are his views not on the vote but on the political interference that appears to have taken place with the appointment of the UK representative to the European Court of Human Rights?

Kenneth Clarke: The Council of Europe works on the basis that the Parliamentary Assembly votes from a shortlist of three people provided by the member state, and now steps are taken to ensure that all three come up to certain standards, which I am glad to say the British nominees quite easily did. It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman and I would not start from here, and I agree that normally politicians should not vote on which judge ought to be appointed to any judicial post, but they did and Mr Mahoney, I am sure, will prove an excellent choice.

Intelligence Services (Court Proceedings)

Rebecca Harris: What recent assessment he has made of arrangements for handling sensitive information from the intelligence services in court proceedings.

Kenneth Clarke: The Government have introduced the Justice and Security Bill to introduce a process by which such material may be considered by the courts in civil cases in future. The Bill is currently being considered and scrutinised in the House of Lords.

Rebecca Harris: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Does he agree that if we do not make reforms in this area we run the risk of allowing a substantial industry to develop in expensive legal claims, which we are forced to pay out of court because the Government are unable to defend themselves in open court?

Kenneth Clarke: The Bill stems from our recent experience in the so-called Guantanamo Bay cases, when a very large sum of money was paid out to satisfy claims and legal costs when the security and intelligence services insisted that they had an adequate defence. An increasing number of those cases are coming along, and it is not for me to pre-judge any of them, but I should like the judge to be able to hear all the evidence in the circumstances that are possible—closed material proceedings—so that we as citizens obtain some judgment in the end about the merits or otherwise of the complaint. We certainly must not encourage people to go along for both the
	political publicity and the potential funds that might flow from bringing a claim that they know cannot be defended.

Paul Goggins: On what basis has the Justice Secretary decided not to allow closed material proceedings at inquests? Surely if there is a highly sensitive piece of intelligence that would help to explain the cause of someone’s death, the coroner should be able to see that information, albeit on a protected basis.

Kenneth Clarke: We canvassed that proposal in the consultation, and I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but we have responded to the consultation, in which there were strong feelings against the procedure being applied to inquests—despite the support that we had from coroners’ associations.
	The argument is that the coroner cannot consider such material in closed material proceedings because it means that the family, the press and other interested parties will not be able to hear what the spies have to say, and that is the basis on which we have introduced the Bill—we are a listening Government. But I did canvass the measure that the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

Police and Crime Commissioners (Women’s Services)

Bridget Phillipson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on providing high-quality services for women within the criminal justice system following the election of police and crime commissioners.

Nick Herbert: The Ministry of Justice has been working with the Home Office to ensure that local areas are prepared for the introduction of police and crime commissioners, who will have duties to work with local criminal justice bodies, including in relation to the provision of women’s services.

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but the proposal to devolve some victims’ services to police and crime commissioners is not without risk. What will he do to ensure a minimum standard of provision throughout the country, regardless of the area in which the victim lives?

Nick Herbert: First, it is important to point out that some specialist services, such as the homicide service, rape crisis centres and so on, will continue to be commissioned nationally, but we think it right in principle that elected police and crime commissioners should commission victims’ services locally. It will mean that there is a champion for victims in every single area; it will ensure the greater integration of such services with the police, who have a very important duty in relation to victims; and it will be for elected police and crime commissioners, accountable to the public, to ensure that they provide a high-quality service to victims.

Tom Brake: In March, in recognition of the specific problems that women experience in prison, the Government committed
	to deliver a document setting out the strategic priorities for women in the criminal justice system. When will it be published, and how will it link with the work that Louise Casey is doing on troubled families and, of course, the work of elected police and crime commissioners?

Nick Herbert: The stock answer to all such questions is “in due course”, but my right hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that such services are integrated. There is important work going on in the local criminal justice system in relation to women’s offending. Police and crime commissioners will have a role, in liaison with the local criminal justice agencies. The troubled families work being led by Louise Casey is very important in efforts to prevent crime. I believe that police and crime commissioners will be in a strong position to ensure local coherence in work to divert people from the criminal justice system and from crime.

Jenny Chapman: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who has considerable experience in providing victims services, the Minister confirmed that there will be no minimum standards for victims. To give just one example, two thirds of victims of stalking said that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service did not take their complaint seriously, and offenders are not charged in almost nine in every 10 cases. There is a risk of specialist services falling between the cracks—looking after the detail makes a difference—and such services are not likely to win PCC votes. Will the Minister consider intervening if the loss of specialist services for women continues after the election of PCCs?

Nick Herbert: But the whole point of the change is to ensure that there will be accountability for the provision of victims services, which will lie at local level with people who are already responsible for the police and who will be champions for victims. The cross-party Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has already welcomed the proposal, and the youth charity Catch22 says it believes that police and crime commissioners generally have the potential to bring real coherence at the local level to the planning and commissioning of services designed to reduce and prevent crime and support victims. I am sorry that Opposition Front Benchers do not support what I believe is a very good idea that will strength victims services at the local level.

Helen Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that community women offender facilities, in which this Government have invested substantially, provide a real alternative to custody for many women in the criminal justice system?

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of women in custody has been declining, in contrast with the number of men. We have been developing intensive treatment-based alternatives to custody for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services in Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside. They are an important part of our strategy to ensure that offending by women is dealt with as effectively and appropriately as possible.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on public safety of the abolition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection.

Crispin Blunt: As the published impact assessment for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 makes clear, the continuing regime of life sentences and a new mandatory life sentence for a second very serious offence, as well as longer custodial periods and extended licence periods, all supported by compulsory sentence plans and multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—supervision, will ensure that there are sufficient measures to manage risk and uphold public protection.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the Minister for his response, but the Justice Secretary is on record saying that the number of those currently in prison who have served beyond their minimum tariff on an IPP sentence is a scandal. What proposals does the Minister of State intend to make on the release test for those on IPP sentences?

Crispin Blunt: There are no immediate proposals to change the release test. In March, there were 3,500 IPP prisoners serving beyond their tariff, a result of the administrative chaos that followed the unwise introduction of the sentence, with wholly unforeseen numbers being given such a sentence. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that, in addition to the measures I have outlined, violent offender orders and sex offending prevention orders will be available to the courts to use for public protection.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of indeterminate sentences for prisoners who would otherwise have received relatively short sentences, far from enhancing public safety consumes resources in the prison system that are desperately needed for effective rehabilitation and stopping reoffending?

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: such sentences consume substantial resources, not just in the offender management system but in the Parole Board and elsewhere. The prison system was having to manage a potential future disaster in the ever-increasing number of indeterminate sentence prisoners. We have finally got a grip on the problem and are now addressing it.

Andy Slaughter: In trying to save money, the Minister misses the point. Without indeterminate sentences, some of the most violent and dangerous criminals—rapists, armed robbers and those who prey on the weakest and most vulnerable—will be released from custody against the professional advice of the probation service and others. Will that make the public more or less safe?

Crispin Blunt: The shadow Minister is wrong because indeterminate sentences remain—they are called life sentences. There will be mandatory life sentences for the kind of offender that he described.

Andrew Bridgen: In 2010, 1,019 individuals were given indeterminate sentences. Will the Minister assess the rehabilitation strategies for those currently serving indeterminate sentences?

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. We inherited a serious administrative problem in that the capacity of the offender management system was being overwhelmed by the number of people with indeterminate sentences—[Interruption.] It is absolutely not the judge’s fault; it is the fault of the previous Administration, who failed to put in place the resources to deal with the sentences that they then passed in the House. That is one of the many problems that we are having to address. IPPs are a classic example of the shambles that we have—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister should calm himself. The shadow Justice Secretary is a man of very great distinction. He would not behave like that in court; he would probably be turfed out or struck off. I cannot imagine it—very out of character.

Crispin Blunt: The sense of my outrage on behalf of the system and the officials at the mess that we have had to clear up is perfectly clear to the House, Mr Speaker.

Probation System

Luciana Berger: What progress he has made on his proposals to reform the probation system.

Kenneth Clarke: On 27 March, in the consultation document “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, the Government published proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services. Alongside that, we published proposals to deliver more credible and effective community sentences. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation, which closed on 22 June. We intend to publish the Government response later in the year.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Under a marketisation of the probation service, how can he assure the House that fragmentation of the service will not put the public at risk? What safeguards are in place to ensure that cherry-picking by private sector providers of individuals on probation does not occur?

Kenneth Clarke: I am somewhat astonished by the reaction of some Opposition Members. We are following the policy first laid out in the Offender Management Act 2007. The probation trusts have now all been set up and we are introducing principles to bring some competition and diversity of provider. There are very good people who can provide some aspects of the probation service. We believe that that will both enhance the quality of the service and achieve better value for money and better outcomes. Plenty of people in the probation service welcome our proposals; indeed, some are surprised by their modesty.

Philip Davies: At a recent multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA, meeting that I sat in on, a probation officer reported that his
	client was having problems meeting a curfew of 7 o’clock at night. When the officer was asked what he was doing to deal with the curfew’s being breached, he said that he had changed the curfew to 9 o’clock to aid compliance. Will the Secretary of State tell me what he is going to do to stop such outrages, which make a complete mockery of the probation system and the criminal justice system?

Kenneth Clarke: I cannot comment on an individual case, although I am sure that my hon. Friend did when he had the pleasure of listening to that exchange. We are seeking to make both the probation service and community sentences more effective, by which I mean more punitive when necessary but also more effective in controlling the behaviour of the offender.
	We have taken powers to extend the hours of curfew. We intend to make more use of tagging to enforce curfews, among other things. We are testing more effective equipment and consulting on how best to use tags and modern technology effectively.

Mr Speaker: I am now looking for stunning succinctness. I call Mr Elfyn Llwyd.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall try to stun you, Mr Speaker.
	The Secretary of State knows that the relationship between probation officer and offender is crucial to the rehabilitation process. How will he assure the House that opening up to the private sector will not undermine that crucial relationship?

Kenneth Clarke: In all these things, I take the view that the status of the person involved—whether they are classified as public sector or private sector, or who exactly they work for or which union they belong to—is a slightly subordinate issue. This is a rather sterile debate of a few decades ago about whether there should be private sector or public sector provision. What matters is the quality of what is done, the quality of the person, the relationships they develop, and what is available to them to make a community sentence more effective.

Fines (Collection)

Tristram Hunt: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for recovery of criminal fines.

Jonathan Djanogly: In the financial year 2011-12, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service collected £279 million in respect of criminal fines, further reducing the cost of enforcement and achieving the best ever performance against the payment rate measure. But now we want to do better, so we have developed better-quality performance indicators for publication and are exploring the potential for creating a partnership with a commercial company to build on the improvements we have already made in fines collection.

Tristram Hunt: What the Minister did not reveal is that over £600 million in outstanding fines is owed by criminals, of which £10 million relates to Staffordshire, and a further £5.5 million of unrecovered debts have already been written off. When faced with falling living
	standards and the effects of ill-planned spending cuts, my constituents want to know why this Government are allowing criminals to think that crime does pay.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman mentions the collection backlog, and thereby raises the collection inadequacies of the previous Administration which we are now having to sort out. In 2011-12, the payment rate was 106%, and last year, for the first time since 2003-04, the outstanding balance was reduced by £16 million—that is, 3%.

David Burrowes: Given the new statutory presumption that victims of crime will be compensated, can we ensure that whatever the means of offenders, they will all have to make amends to their victims?

Jonathan Djanogly: Absolutely, and if that is by way of a fine, we intend to collect it.

Young Offenders

Steve Brine: What recent steps he has taken to reduce reoffending by young offenders.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent steps he has taken to reduce reoffending by young offenders.

Stephen Mosley: What recent steps he has taken to reduce reoffending by young offenders.

Crispin Blunt: Reducing reoffending is a key priority for this Government, and the challenge is most acute with young offenders. Recent steps that will specifically apply to under-18s include youth custody pathfinders, the troubled families programme, the programme on gangs and youth violence, restorative justice, new out-of-court disposals, increased curfews, more severe breach penalties, minimum mandatory custodial sentences for aggravated knife crime, and integrated resettlement support. These measures complement the already very substantial number of further measures and programmes that are aimed at dealing with all age groups who reoffend, not least young adults.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister for his breathless list. He will know of the charity User Voice, which engages those who have experience of the criminal justice system in bringing about reform and reducing reoffending. A group of young people from the organisation recently came to give evidence to the Justice Committee for its youth justice inquiry. It was striking to hear them say that having respect for the status and position of a youth offending team worker is not the same thing as connecting with them and having them make a reasonable difference to their lives. Does the Minister agree that there has to be a much greater role for offenders and ex-offenders in steering young people away from the spiral of offending and constant reoffending?

Crispin Blunt: I have met people from User Voice several times, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of their work. I also agree that ex-offenders are uniquely
	placed to offer support to offenders, along with other professional services, and can connect with them in a way that many other agencies cannot. Peer-mentoring services using ex-offenders are being developed at Ashfield and Cookham Wood young offenders institutions, working with the Prince’s Trust.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What particular support will there be for young offenders institutions such as Lancaster Farms in my constituency, particularly in dealing with young offenders on short-term sentences?

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the work of Lancashire Farms, which is a young offenders institute for young adults. There are a range of initiatives. The piloting of drug recovery wings will apply to those with short sentences. We are reforming the way in which education and training are delivered and linking them directly to the demands of the labour market on release. Prisoners who are assessed for jobseeker’s allowance before their release will be mandated to the Work programme on the first day of their release, and that will be an important way of joining up Government and involving the Department for Work and Pensions.

Stephen Mosley: The lack of work opportunities is one reason young offenders go on to reoffend. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of the link between youth unemployment and reoffending, and what steps is he taking to help young offenders find work?

Crispin Blunt: We know that it is important to tackle youth unemployment. The £1 billion youth contract will encourage employers to give young jobless people a chance, the Youth Justice Board has developed an employing ex-offenders action plan, and resettlement consortia have achieved success in helping many young people to find employment on release from custody.

John Healey: Does the Minister agree that the best efforts to reduce reoffending are often based on local courts with good local knowledge, working closely with local agencies? We have a very good magistrates court in Rotherham for Rotherham, and a very good one in Barnsley for Barnsley. Will he rule out any further magistrates court closures, which might put local justice in jeopardy?

Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot do that. We have to deliver the whole justice system as efficiently as possible. Because of the financial catastrophe that overtook the country under the last Administration, of which he played a prominent part in the Treasury, the provision of all court and prison infrastructure has to be examined so that we can deliver offender management considerably more effectively than the last Administration.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the new drug-free wing at Pentonville prison, which aims to cut reoffending. May I put to the Minister what I put to the Lord Chancellor when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning? The key to ending reoffending is to help prisoners once they leave prison. That support is vital.

Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are examining how we can make the transition from custody into the community much more effective for drug-addicted offenders. We want drug workers in the community to reach into prisons and link in the—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to be unkind, but the answers are simply too long. Progress is too slow and it needs to be speeded up.

Bill Esterson: The double-dip recession created by the Government has made it much harder for young people in general and young offenders in particular to find work. What conversations is the Minister having with his colleagues to encourage growth in the economy and to solve the problem of youth unemployment in general and young offenders in particular?

Crispin Blunt: The last time I looked, Spain’s interest rates were about 4% higher than ours. If we had those interest rates, it would cost the country £40 billion a year to borrow the amount of money necessary, which would certainly put paid to all the employment programmes that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Magistracy

Jesse Norman: What plans he has to protect and enhance the powers of the magistracy.

Nick Herbert: The Government will shortly publish plans on improving the criminal justice system, including by reinforcing the important role of magistrates.

Jesse Norman: The magistracy is one of the great glories of the English legal system, and Hereford magistrates court is a case in point. Will the Minister give some reassurance that there are no plans to change the services at Hereford magistrates court or to close it?

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of magistrates. They are lay people who give of their time, and the community justice that they dispense is an important feature of our criminal justice system. That is too little acknowledged. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, we continually review the estate to ensure that it is well utilised, but we have no current plans to close Hereford magistrates court.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that over many years and under many Governments the magistracy has been run down? It has been run down because so many local courts have been closed. Once the link between being a magistrate and the local community is broken, it no longer works. What is he going to do about that?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that one of the issues that magistrates are most concerned about is the growth of out-of-court disposals, which soared under the last Government in response to the target culture. We continue to have concerns about
	the inappropriate use of such disposals. He should reflect on the role of the previous Government in undermining the magistracy.

Bailiff Services

Nick Raynsford: What progress he has made with his proposals on regulation of bailiff services.

Jonathan Djanogly: Following the publication of updated national standards for enforcement agents in January, the Government launched a full public consultation on transforming bailiff action in February. The consultation closed on 14 May, and we are now carefully considering the 250 responses with a view to publishing our response in the autumn.

Nick Raynsford: I am not sure whether any of those responses referred to the Government’s proposed cut of £500 million in council tax benefits next April, which is widely expected to prompt a surge in cases being referred to bailiffs for the recovery of council tax debts. What are the Government doing to prevent an escalation of intrusive, expensive interventions against low-income households?

Jonathan Djanogly: If there are debts to be collected, bailiffs have to go and collect them; otherwise, the system would break down. However, the Government are clear that aggressive bailiff activity is unacceptable, and we are committed to introducing effective proposals that protect the public and ensure that bailiff action is proportionate.

Duncan Hames: I hear the Minister’s answer, but does he not agree that when public bodies such as councils procure bailiff services, they should take some responsibility for the methods they sanction?

Jonathan Djanogly: They should indeed, and they do. The new guidelines are there to ensure that minimum standards of behaviour are adhered to. We have introduced the guidelines before legislating.

Robert Flello: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 contains detailed provisions on the regulation of bailiffs, and in May 2010 the coalition agreement stated that action would be taken. Here we are in summer 2012, and no Government response to the consultation is expected until the end of the year and the Government are hitting households from every side, forcing them into more and more debt every day. With a catalogue of appalling behaviour by bad bailiffs, and even reputable bailiffs saying that they need regulation urgently, when will the Government finally stop delaying and get on with it?

Jonathan Djanogly: Any delay arises from the non-implementation of part 3 of the 2007 Act, and the cause of our delay is the same reason why the Labour Government delayed—their legislation does not work. We have acted in the interim by putting guidelines in place, and we are
	now consulting on upgrading legislation in a measured and balanced way. We will consider the many interests that exist and the balance that we have to achieve.

Legal Advice/Welfare Reform

Stephen Timms: What assessment he has made of the availability of legal advice to people on low incomes who will be affected by the Government’s proposed welfare reforms.

Jonathan Djanogly: During the development of the legal aid reforms, the Ministry of Justice conducted detailed assessments of the availability of legal advice funded by legal aid or provided by the not-for-profit advice sector. With regard to welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions is developing a strategy for working with the voluntary sector, including welfare advice services, to ensure that people on low incomes have access to the support that they need to understand their rights and entitlements following the move to universal credit.

Stephen Timms: During ping-pong on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, Ministers accepted that legal aid should still be available for an appeal to the first-tier tribunal if a point of law is at stake. How will someone establish whether a point of law is at stake, and when will the provision take effect?

Jonathan Djanogly: I confirm that we are giving serious thought to the issue and considering the exact scope of the concession, as well as how such work will be delivered in future, because the operational aspects are just as important. Once we have considered that in full, we will make an announcement.

Office of Information Commissioner

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the value for money and effectiveness of the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice and the Information Commissioner’s Office meet regularly to ensure that the office operates effectively and secures the best possible value from the resources available to it. The ICO’s next annual report is due out on Thursday.

Robert Halfon: As I told the Minister when I wrote to him a few weeks ago, it took a long campaign in Parliament in 2010 before the Information Commissioner was prepared to admit that Google Street View had broken the Data Protection Act on an industrial scale. It has now taken an investigation by The Sunday Times and action in America for the ICO to actually act and pursue Google further. Surely the ICO should be accountable to Ministers, and therefore to the British people, so that when there are such problems someone can take charge.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Information Commissioner is of course accountable to the public via Parliament. His annual reports are laid before Parliament, and he could
	be questioned on his reports by, for instance, the Justice Committee. It would be wrong for me to comment on the ICO’s handling of any particular case. That said, I understand that the ICO has reopened its investigation into Google Street View because it has received some new information about Google’s capture of data from wi-fi networks in the USA. The investigation is ongoing.

Community Payback

Mark Pawsey: What recent assessment he has made of the operation of community payback; and if he will make a statement.

Crispin Blunt: The Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, contained proposals relating to community payback that have been confirmed by the Government. Plans are in place to implement these changes, and the results of the first competition to administer community payback in London will be announced shortly. My assessment is that this competition and the preparation for competitions in all other trusts have substantially improved all elements of operational delivery.

Mark Pawsey: In Warwickshire, more than 63,000 hours of community payback are completed each year by offenders on a community sentence. They carry out projects such as litter removal, clearing undergrowth and removing graffiti—labour worth about £360,000. Does the Minister agree that in certain cases this is a worthwhile way for offenders to make a contribution to the society that they have harmed?

Crispin Blunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that 179 organisations in Warwickshire benefited from community payback last year. Not only is there an opportunity to link with members of the public through the ability to nominate community payback schemes, but these nominations are now running at more than 1,000 a month.

Mr Speaker: Whether we have time or not, we will hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

Riots Communities and Victims Panel

Simon Hughes: What steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the final report of the riots communities and victims panel.

Nick Herbert: The Government welcome the final report from the independent riots communities and victims panel and will publish a formal response in due course.

Simon Hughes: This very good report made some very good recommendations to the Ministry of Justice, including for more effective community sentencing—specifically, that communities should choose the projects and that the results, including reoffending rates, should be published. Will Ministers be positive about those recommendations? I am sure it would be appreciated.

Nick Herbert: I think we will be positive about exactly that kind of proposal—we have already published formal consultation proposals to strengthen community sentences, which was one of the recommendations in the report. That is important, because the report itself drew attention to the fact that those who were brought before the courts in relation to the riots had 11 previous convictions, which showed that the justice system had not been effective in dealing with such problem offending.

Topical Questions

David Ruffley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Kenneth Clarke: Yesterday, the Government published their response to the consultation entitled, “Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses”. For too long, many victims have felt themselves to be an afterthought for the criminal justice system. Our reforms will ensure that victims and witnesses get the support they need when they need it. Our proposals include an aim to raise an additional £50 million from offenders to be spent on victims’ services. Responsibility for commissioning most victims’ services will eventually go to democratically accountable police and crime commissioners, ensuring that decisions about service provision respond to local need. We will reform criminal injuries compensation so that it is focused on victims of serious crime and is sustainable, and there will be a new victims code making it clear what victims can expect from the criminal justice system and ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect.

David Ruffley: A UK prisoner is litigating in the European Court of Human Rights asserting his right to vote. When does the Secretary of State expect that decision to be handed down by the Court, and does he expect the House of Commons to be able to vote on the issue of votes for prisoners?

Kenneth Clarke: There has been repeated litigation involving several member states that do not allow prisoners to vote, as we have never done. The most recent litigation was Scoppola v. the Italian Government, in which our Attorney-General intervened on behalf of the British Government to argue that Parliament was more responsible for this issue than the Court. The Government will respond to that judgment, which went against a blanket ban, in due course.

Sadiq Khan: There are 6,500 prisoners who have been ordered by trial judges to serve indeterminate sentences for public protection. It is important for public safety that they be released only after a proper risk assessment, but more than 3,500 are waiting for appropriate programmes and a risk assessment. Does the Justice Secretary have any plans to increase the number of programmes and assessments to address this issue?

Kenneth Clarke: This system, which we are getting rid of, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) reminded us earlier, has put a tremendous load on the prison service in terms of programme design, availability of suitable places and the Parole Board system. We are addressing that and trying to reduce the delays, but it will take us
	some time to get through the system. Of course, some will remain indeterminately imprisoned, but we want as many as possible to finish their proper sentence, to get them out and to put behind us this rather shameful chapter in the history of sentencing in this country.

Sadiq Khan: As is normal, the Justice Secretary did not answer the question I asked. Let me try another. His ministerial colleague said that there were no immediate plans to change the release test. Yesterday, Lord McNally said that the Government may use Executive action to release those serving IPPs, and would also change the balance of judgment to be made by the Parole Board to free up prison places. Those two actions could lead to prisoners who are currently serving IPPs being released without due regard to public safety. Which Minister should we believe, and is it really worth taking a risk with public safety to reduce prison numbers?

Kenneth Clarke: I will check what Lord McNally actually said. We are not contemplating either of those steps at the moment. We are putting extra resources into programmes and into addressing the problems that the Parole Board is faced with. We are quite determined not to take risks with public safety, but indeterminate sentences really were one of the worst ways of trying to do that, as they left a grave sense of injustice and difficulty coping with the proper assessment of people, for open-ended release.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced extra financial support of £50 million to be provided for victims of crime, with offenders being forced to make the financial contribution. I strongly welcome that, but could see no information on the Department’s website about when the scheme will start. Can he help with that?

Crispin Blunt: Subject to parliamentary approval of the orders that have been laid before the House, the changes to the victim surcharge should be implemented in October. We would expect to see the revenue starting to come in six months thereafter. The money—up to £50 million—will come from offenders and go towards victims, which is a move away from the taxpayer being responsible. The Government’s policies will also mean courts ordering offenders to pay more in compensation to victims—indeed, that will be the first duty on sentencers to consider.

Dan Jarvis: According to the Legal Services Consumer Panel, 180,000 wills are written each year by unregulated services. Both the national press and the Barnsley Law Society have reported that thousands of people are being ripped off by unregulated will-writing services. What does the Justice Secretary think is the solution to the problem?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government recognise this as a serious issue. We are in discussion with the Legal Services Board, which have just done a consultation, and we will be making an announcement in due course.

Philip Hollobone: In thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice for visiting a community payback scheme in Kettering on 18 June, may I ask whether he agrees that the work we saw being undertaken was both worth while and sufficiently arduous to prevent future reoffending?

Nick Herbert: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for inviting me to Kettering to see that scheme. The offenders were wearing fluorescent jackets to identify them as people doing work on behalf of the community. They were working hard constructing a path alongside a river, which will be of huge value to the community and would not have been constructed but for that work. That shows that we can make community payback an effective and meaningful punishment on behalf of the community.

Sheila Gilmore: Professor Harrington, the independent reviewer of the work capability assessment, has highlighted the fact that Department for Work and Pensions officials are not routinely given feedback when appellants’ appeals have been successful, which means that they cannot improve practice. Why not?

Jonathan Djanogly: There are costs involved in feedback, but that does not mean that the DWP cannot ask for feedback if it wants it. The efficiency of the tribunal processes is being looked at carefully, with Ministry of Justice officials and Ministers working closely with DWP equivalents.

Bob Blackman: Many countries outside the UK have legal systems that are based on ours, and this is particularly true in the Commonwealth. What has my right hon. and learned Friend done to market the legal services in the UK to those countries?

Kenneth Clarke: We are making a considerable effort to market British legal services, both within the Commonwealth and across the wider world, in many important emerging markets and elsewhere. I am glad to say that we are working closely with the Bar Council and the Law Society in doing so. Legal services in this country are held in the highest regard in the world—our judges are more trusted and our system is more effective than most others—and they contribute 1.3% to the GDP of this country. Legal services are second only to financial services in the City of London, and are something we should promote and support.

Shabana Mahmood: Is the Minister able to put a figure on how much the repeated failure of Applied Language Solutions to provide interpreters in court proceedings has cost the taxpayer through delayed proceedings?

Crispin Blunt: We have published assessments of ALS’s performance, and we will continue to do so, but it is impossible to arrive at the numbers the hon. Lady is seeking. Her question seems to imply that the previous system for booking interpreters was a model of exactitude and correctitude; it was not. ALS’s performance is now reaching the required contract level.

David Mowat: In this country, we now have 1,200 whiplash claims a day, which is about 30 times more than in France or Germany. The industry costs to the rest of us are £2 billion a year, resulting in many young people being unable to afford to insure their cars. What discussions has the Minister had with the relevant regulatory body of the Law Society that drives this industry?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government are committed to reducing the number of whiplash claims, and we have had discussions with all parties involved in these claims. We will consult over the summer on reducing the number of whiplash claims, including through looking at the medical certificates that are handed out, as well as at small claims levels.

Caroline Lucas: My constituent, Sam Taylor, has been subjected to, and still lives in fear of, the most terrible harassment from her ex-partner. The new offences relating to stalking represent real progress, but Sam’s case shows that serious work still needs to be done on the ground to ensure that she and her family can be properly protected. Will the Minister meet Sam, along with the chief superintendent of Sussex police and me, to hear why she remains concerned?

Nick Herbert: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that issue.

David Davis: On 4 September, the European Court of Human Rights will hear the case of Nadia Eweida v. the United Kingdom Government. I understand that the Government are resisting the case. Miss Eweida is the lady who effectively lost her job with British Airways for wearing a cross, a symbol of her religion, at work. Is it any part of the British Government’s policy to support the denial of people’s religious rights at work? If not, will we reconsider our position on that case?

Kenneth Clarke: I will consult the Attorney-General, who is no doubt preparing the Government’s defence in this case. This is obviously a hugely difficult issue; the case has gone through the courts here and is now going to be heard in Strasbourg. Whatever one’s feelings about the narrow facts of the individual case, there are wider issues about the enforcement of religious rights in employment, and I have no doubt that they will be properly canvassed. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the Justice Secretary confirm that, despite Ministers’ claims to the contrary, judges will be left with no option under the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill but to grant closed material proceedings?

Kenneth Clarke: I disagree. It is certainly my intention—this is the way in which the Bill is drafted—that there will be closed material proceedings only when the judge is satisfied that there would be a risk to national security if the evidence were to be given in open court. We are not taking into secrecy or excluding from the court any evidence that is heard in court at the moment. For the first time, we are creating an opportunity for the judge
	to consider intelligence evidence, but that will happen only in those cases in which the judge is satisfied that national security is involved.

Greg Mulholland: I am sure that Ministers would agree that causing death by dangerous driving is a serious offence, particularly when drivers are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, yet it is not regarded as serious by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I have had two constituent cases in which the families have suffered not only the appalling loss of a family member but huge financial loss. Unlike the families of manslaughter and murder victims, they are not eligible for any compensation.

Kenneth Clarke: Compensation is for criminal offences, and it depends on the severity of the injury. We are concentrating on the most severe injuries that can be suffered. It would be very nice to extend it to all road traffic cases, particularly those that cause outrage or particular damage, but it would be impossible to ask the taxpayer to pay compensation in such cases.

Hazel Blears: Last week, I had the opportunity to have an excellent meeting with the courageous and very impressive chief crown prosecutor of Greater Manchester, Mr Nazir Afzal. He has given his full personal backing to the pilot of Clare’s law, which will identify serial perpetrators of domestic violence and is due to be launched in Greater Manchester in the next few weeks. Will the Minister ensure that criminal justice systems across the country support those pilots so that we can protect people from domestic violence?

Crispin Blunt: Yes.

Robert Buckland: The failure to bring criminal prosecutions against those who have wrought such havoc to our banking system continues to cause huge public concern. Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any discussions with ministerial colleagues about how the proposed fresh investigations will be properly supported and resourced?

Kenneth Clarke: On reading what I have of these cases, it seems to me quite plain that possible crimes are involved in what has been described. I am glad to say that the Serious Fraud Office is, I am assured, investigating. It is properly a matter for it and not in the end a matter for Ministers whether anybody is prosecuted for anything. I think we are all reassured to know that this is being inquired into, as anybody guilty of crime must be brought to justice.

Alison Seabeck: There is evidence in the south-west of companies setting up internal companies to pursue debt—in effect, two companies pursue the same debt. The Office of Fair Trading describes this as an unfair practice and the direction guidance says that such practice constitutes harassment when two bailiffs chase the same debt. There are clearly Chinese walls in this practice; is it going to be looked at as part of the regulation review?

Jonathan Djanogly: If bailiffs are involved, it does fall within the terms of the consultation. I will come back to the hon. Lady on the specific point.

Anna Soubry: The Secretary of State could be forgiven for not knowing that 72 years ago yesterday, he was born in the same ward of the same Nottingham hospital as my constituent, Mr Roy Plumb. Unfortunately, Mr Plumb had to retire as a magistrate on his 70th birthday. I do not expect the Secretary of State to refer to his own age and I would not want him to retire, but does he agree that the time has come to allow magistrates to serve beyond their 70th birthday?

Mr Speaker: Let us hear about the case of Mr Plumb.

Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent on his birthday yesterday. The argument for retaining a retirement age of 70 for judges of all kinds—I agree that this is a mere stripling for most occupations—is that, unlike me and most other people in their 70s, they cannot be removed from office: they are there for life, and can be removed only for quite serious bad behaviour. If we let everybody go on until whatever age, we will get into difficulties and politicians or somebody else will have to start appraising their performance, as they cannot be dismissed peremptorily. That is what has made us hold back from raising the compulsory retirement age for magistrates and judges at every level.

Ann Coffey: On 15 May, I asked the Minister when he was going to respond to the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee on the presumption of death in guardianship, which were published on 22 February. He responded, “Shortly”. May I please ask the question again?

Jonathan Djanogly: The answer is now “Very shortly”.

Tessa Munt: A couple of weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) visited the high-performing Shepton Mallet prison in my constituency. It has a great team of staff. Will the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State comment on the fairness of recognising the high numbers of years of service of prison officers with jubilee medals, but not honouring the support staff, who are equally important in the smooth running of this prison, in the same way? Would it not be churlish not to produce some more medals so that they can be given to the support staff as well?

Mr Speaker: It might be churlish to interrupt the hon. Lady, so on this occasion I did not, but a blue pencil would be of benefit.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about my visit to Shepton Mallet prison, and I would agree about the quality of the performance of all the staff in that prison. I have to say, however, that medals are probably above my pay grade.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State will know that his Department will face tribunal costs of almost £50 million, largely arising from appeals to the work capability
	assessment. Given that 40% of those appeals are successful, is it not now time that his Department and the Tribunal Service discussed with Atos Healthcare how to get some of the money back—otherwise, the public are paying twice for wrong decisions?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Better decisions need to be made by Departments in the first place so that fewer are appealed, and the Ministry of Justice is working with other Departments to that end.

Business of the House

George Young: Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for this Thursday will now be proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by a debate on two motions relating to professional standards in the banking industry. I shall make my usual business statement on Thursday.

Angela Eagle: I welcome that statement from the Leader of the House. Can he tell us how long he expects the debates to last?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the statement. The plan is to table a business motion today which will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. The debate will be the main business on Thursday, and we plan to bring it to a conclusion at 5.15 pm to allow time for debate before 6 pm.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that questions on the statement must relate to the statement itself, and thus only to the implications of the change in business. They must not extend to the arrangement of business more widely, and certainly not to the issues of substance that will be the subject of the debate on Thursday. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

John Redwood: Will the Leader of the House ensure that on Thursday it will be in order to debate banking competition and the structure of the state banks, so that we can have a proper debate on banking?

George Young: The question of whether a speech would be in order would be a matter for you in the Chair, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be able to see the two motions which we hope to table today and which, in that event, will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. I am sure that, if he catches your eye on Thursday, he will be able to couch his speech in such a way as to remain in order.
	I said that there will be debates at 5.15 pm; I meant votes.

Hugh Bayley: As a direct result of the announcement made by the Leader of the House, we will lose the opportunity on Thursday to debate a motion selected by the Backbench Business Committee about VAT and ambulance services. Can the Leader of the House tell me when time will be made available for that debate? Has he a date in mind, and how much time will be provided?

George Young: I very much regret the inconvenience to the House and to Members who were planning to take part in Thursday’s debate on the two motions proposed by the Backbench Business Committee. I intend to find time for one of those two debates between now and the summer recess if possible. I hope to be able to say more on Thursday.

Bernard Jenkin: The other motion tabled for that day is in the name of members of the Public Administration Committee, and invites the House to give its opinion of our recommendation that the adviser on ministerial interests should be able to instigate his own inquiries instead of having to wait for a referral from the Prime Minister. Given that this is a very topical issue and that the Government have yet to respond to our latest report, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find time for that debate, not least because I am sure he would not want the impression to be given that the Government were reluctant to debate the issue?

George Young: The subject that my hon. Friend has raised is indeed important, but my own view—without any disrespect—is that the crisis in the banking industry is even more important, and that it is entirely right for the House to find time to debate it. I can tell my hon. Friend that we plan to honour our commitment to the Backbench Business Committee to find at least 27 days for debate on the Floor of the House in each Session. I hope to say a little more about the time available, but the Committee already has half a day next Wednesday, and I hope that it will also have the last day before the House rises; so it is not the case that it has been totally starved of time.

Natascha Engel: The debate on banking is of course very important, and the House understands that. It is only regrettable that it happens to be a Back-Bench day that it is replacing it. Will the Leader of the House not only undertake to look into that, but guarantee that both the important debates that have had to be postponed will be held before the House rises for the summer recess?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. At the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee this morning, representations were made to her for a debate on the banking industry, so there is an appetite for that. In response to her request to make good the two half days, as I have said, the Committee already has a half day earmarked for sittings motions next Wednesday, and I hope it will also have the last day before we rise for the recess. I will use my best endeavours to find another half day between now and the time the House rises. I cannot go further than that at this time.

Peter Bone: This is an outrage, Mr Speaker. This is the Executive imposing their will on Back-Bench time. I invite the Leader of the House to change his decision, as there is some irrelevant business on Monday and we could hold this debate in Executive time then.

George Young: Far from there being irrelevant business on Monday, it is business that I think is so important that it warrants two days of debate. The issue we will be debating on Thursday is also very important. It arose since the last business questions, and there is a debate in the country about the banking industry. I think it is important that this House should also be part of that debate, which is why we have rearranged the business.

Chris Bryant: Will the motions on Thursday require that the Joint Committee operates according to the rules of the primary Chamber, namely the House of Commons, as opposed to the House of Lords, and will there be an opportunity for a free vote on who gets to chair the Committee?

George Young: The issue of who will chair a Joint Committee, if it is set up, would be a matter for that Committee. The hon. Gentleman will be able to see the motions when they appear on the Order Paper, and they will include the two alternatives: the inquiry that has been proposed by the Opposition, and the Joint Committee that has been proposed by the Government. They will both be put before the House.

John Healey: The Leader of the House’s statement makes it clear that the Government are going to ever greater lengths to avoid a full judge-led inquiry. By the time this House votes at 5.15 pm on Thursday, the Treasury Committee will have held three sessions on the LIBOR scandal, and it is also halfway through an inquiry into governance in the banking industry. If the Leader of the House wants Parliament to do the job, why not let the Select Committee do it, instead of involving the Lords?

George Young: The right hon. Gentleman has begun to engage in a debate that might take place on Thursday, but it goes slightly beyond the scope of the business statement. I hope that in the debate members of the Treasury Committee—including, perhaps, the Chair of the Committee—might express their views on the proposition we will have put before the House.

Kelvin Hopkins: I want to add my support to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and to emphasise that there is support for his view on both sides of the House and the Select Committee. This issue is about devolving powers from the Prime Minister, which would be a significant constitutional change, and it deserves the House’s full attention.

George Young: It is indeed an important matter, and I think I am right in saying that the Chairs of all the Select Committees have added their names to the proposal, so it does have all-party support. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that in the 13 years before the last
	election, the Labour party consistently failed to give the Prime Minister’s adviser the freedom which is now advocated.

John McDonnell: Presenting just these two options does not necessarily represent the views of all Members. Many will want to have an immediate inquiry by the Treasury Committee, to enable a longer-term inquiry to take place. If that were to happen, we could address the immediate issues and have recommendations about the immediate legislative changes needed to address, in particular, confidence in the City, but then also have a longer-term inquiry that could report back in due course.

George Young: The motions we put down tomorrow for debate on Thursday will be amendable, although whether any amendment is chosen is a matter for the Speaker.

Wayne David: I am glad the Leader of the House remembered to inform us that there will be votes on Thursday. Will the Government parties be whipping on the issue, given its importance and the need for consensus?

George Young: Issues of whipping are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House yesterday, but the Government made their views on this issue known then.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Yesterday, we were promised one motion, but today we are being told that there will be two, which apparently, given what he has just said, will be rival motions. As has been mentioned, many people see a case for a parliamentary inquiry that will inform amendments to the Financial Services Bill and also see the need for a wider judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this problem. This “strokery” of good key business being made a casualty of today’s announcement and of rival motions will frustrate Parliament from doing the job it needs to do in response to this crisis.

George Young: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a disagreement between the two sides of the House as to the best way forward. The right way to resolve that disagreement is to have a debate and then have a vote on the two alternative propositions. That is how this House makes a decision.

Honours (Equality of Titles for Partners)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Oliver Colvile: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for husbands and civil partners of those receiving honours to be allowed to use equivalent honorary titles to those available to women; and for connected purposes.
	The aim of this Bill is to ensure that husbands and civil partners of dames and baronesses should be allowed to use a title of some sort if they wish to do so. I feel that the position regarding honours should and needs to be reviewed. I became aware of this anomaly in 1992 when, as a Conservative party agent in Mitcham and Morden, I was working for Angela Rumbold. After a long and distinguished ministerial career, and on ceasing to be the Minister of State at the Home Office, Angela became the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was in charge of candidates and was created a dame by the then Prime Minister and hon. Member for Huntingdon, the right hon. John Major. I remember that being an enormous honour for my friend, for whom I had served for nearly 10 years at that time, but I felt some sorrow for her husband John, who received no recognition for his support—and his finance—throughout her time as a councillor in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and her 10 years as the Member of Parliament for Mitcham and Morden.
	At the time, I felt that that was unjust, and I vowed to try to correct the anomaly should I ever have the opportunity to do so. Just recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) became a knight bachelor in Her Majesty’s birthday honours list, and I am delighted that his work in this House has been recognised. Although his wife is rightly allowed use the term “Lady” as a prefix to her name, the late John Rumbold received no acknowledgment on his wife becoming a dame of the British empire. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) was not recognised while his wife sat in the other place as the Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone, until he was made a knight bachelor.
	I am not going to argue that wives of peers or knights should be forced to give up their ladyship titles. I fear to do so would get me into a great deal of hot water, not only with the readers of The Daily Telegraph, but with my dear Aunt Juliet. Although I have concentrated on Members of this House and the other place, this issue is replicated in other walks of life. My solution to sorting out this anomaly is that the husbands of dames and baronesses should be allowed to call themselves “honourables”—this is similar to the arrangements for children of peers—should they want to do so.
	The honours system has evolved over the years. Although the Anglo-Saxon monarchs are known to have rewarded their loyal subjects with rings and other symbols of favour, it was the Normans who introduced knighthoods as part of their feudal government. The first English order of chivalry, the Order of the Garter, was created in 1348 by Edward III. Since then, the system has evolved to address the changing need to recognise other forms of service to the United Kingdom. Interestingly,
	until the l7th century wives of knights were called dames, but that was replaced with the “Lady” prefix, which I suspect was introduced to avoid confusion. Until 2004, the adopted children of peers had no right to any courtesy title. Pursuant to a royal warrant dated 30 April 2004, adopted children are now automatically entitled to the same styles and courtesy titles as their siblings. However, like biological children, they cannot inherit peerages from an adopting parent and so, as they cannot be heirs apparent, adopted sons may only use the styles of younger sons.
	I understand that although in the 19th century Scottish judges were allowed to use the honorary title “Lord” and would often take the name of their estates, their wives had to remain “Mrs” and would not be allowed to use the prefix “Lady”. On one occasion, a Scottish judge booked himself and his wife a double room in a Paris hotel and, when he signed in as “Lord and Mrs” whatever, the general manager of the hotel refused to take their booking because he thought that the judge was there with his mistress. He said he did not mind what happened in Britain, but such shenanigans were not going to be allowed in France. Very annoyed, the Scottish judge wrote to Queen Victoria, who pronounced that in future wives of Scottish judges should be allowed to call themselves “Lady”, thereby stopping any confusion.
	I ask this: if wives, children and adopted children of knights and peers are allowed to use their titles, why should dames’ and baronesses’ husbands be subject to such overt sexual discrimination? Similarly, surely we need to update the honours system for those who are in a civil partnership. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is such a nice chap that it is awfully difficult to disagree with him on most things—[ Interruption. ] Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is not quite such a pleasant Member of the House, I do disagree on this point. Are there not too many titles already in this country for us to want to dole out a whole load more? We have more than 800 peers, plus the countless hereditaries—the Scottish hereditaries, the Irish ones who still have rights in this country and the English hereditaries. On top of that, we have all their heirs, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned, who have subsidiary titles and are referred to as “Lord This that and the next thing”, “Viscount This that and the next thing”, “Earl Something” or whatever else.
	I checked this earlier and it is even possible to buy a plot of land that gives a person the right to be called a laird, lord or lady from www.highlandtitles.com. I see the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) nodding; she has obviously done it already. The website states:
	“Many of our customers choose to update their driving licence, credit cards and such like to reflect their new status.”
	What a delight! I do not want to praise just one company; there is also www.lordtitles.co.uk. For £18.95, or for an additional £6.95 for a premium title, a person can get their own title. The website effectively guarantees that they will be
	“offered the best seats in restaurants”
	and get
	“airline upgrades and top-notch service.”
	We know all that is true because the editor of GQ, Dylan Jones, who wrote an ironic, I hope, biography of the Prime Minister, which I am about to read now, wrote:
	“At last my chance to lord it over you. Ladies and gentlemen, please grab your forelocks and give them a good old tug. Because I have just become a Lord of the Manor…the title I have was purchased from a website called lordtitles.co.uk…and I intend to lord it over everyone I know…I look forward to…flashing my credit card at impressionable waiters in New York and Los Angeles.”
	This is all, of course, a pile of nonsense. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that in 2004 the Earl Marshal finally caught up with the fact that some peers had adopted children and allowed by warrant that they could use their courtesy titles but not inherit. That seems more scandalously unfair than anything else mentioned by him. It means that Andrew Tottenham, the adopted son of the Marquess of Ely, has to be called Lord Andrew Tottenham, not Viscount Loftus.
	I note that Debrett’s, which is where the hon. Gentleman’s speech seems to have come from, states:
	“It is very important that anyone corresponding with a member of the peerage is aware of the rank and precedence of the person he or she is in contact with, so that the correct form of address may be used.”
	To be honest, it is not important to my constituents in the Rhondda. We have only one person with a title that I am aware of living in the Rhondda, Baroness Gale of Blaenrhondda. She is from Blaenrhondda, and the people of Blaenrhondda love her, but she does not own Blaenrhondda as the titles were originally intended to denote.
	There is no need for legislation to change the courtesy titles—no need at all. These courtesy titles are no different from the fact that we call one another Mr, Mrs, Esquire, the Reverend or the Honourable. They are merely courtesy titles, and all we need to do, if we want to, is change our custom and practice. There is no need for legislation. The courtesy titles that have applied to the wives of people who have peerages, knighthoods or baronetcies have made sense only when those wives have chosen to take the name of their husband, so that, for instance, Mrs Prescott becomes Lady Prescott and Mrs Meale becomes Lady Meale.
	If I were ever to marry a woman—I know that is unlikely, but I very nearly got there a long, long time ago—I certainly would not be marrying the kind of woman who would want to take my name. Many women
	today choose to keep their own name. Consequently, there is an additional layer of prejudice that the hon. Gentleman’s Bill would introduce against people who choose not to take their partner’s name. That applies to those who enter into civil partnerships as well.
	What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting would devalue those who get honours in their own right. For instance, take Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone. I have no idea why she is “of Nettlestone” because she was born in Dunoon, and Nettlestone is a place in the Isle of Wight, which is nowhere near the place where she was formerly a Member of Parliament. Her husband—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—was knighted in 2011. I am delighted that he is a knight of the realm but I think it is unfair that his knighthood should be eclipsed by his wife’s peerage and, therefore, the title that he would get as a courtesy title under the proposed Bill.
	Similarly, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is now a dame, but I hope very much that her husband, who is the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), will also at some point get a knighthood in his own right and not have to rely on a courtesy title.
	The custom is a relic of a bygone age when women were merely adjunct. In effect, they were referred to as the chattels, along with the household chattels, of a peer or a knight of the realm. I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport thinks his Bill will bring greater equality and that, for instance, for lesbian couples and gay couples, it will mean that they will suddenly be able to provide a courtesy title for their partner, but think of the complications likely to occur when Lord Alli’s partner is suddenly able to acquire a title which bears no relation to his own title. If the hon. Gentleman were going to do something for the LGBT community that would increase equality, he would be far better off supporting marriage equality than introducing this rather futile piece of legislation.
	Finally, if Conservative MPs have to rely on introducing ten-minute rule Bills of this kind, it seems to me that they are a party increasingly out of touch with the modern world.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Oliver Colvile, Mrs Eleanor Laing, Sheryll Murray, Dan Byles, Mr Marcus Jones, Mr Lee Scott, Jack Lopresti, Ian Paisley, Caroline Dinenage, Keith Vaz, Sarah Newton and Stephen Gilbert present the Bill.
	Oliver Colvile accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November 2012 ,  and to be printed (Bill 55).

Finance Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Face-value vouchers

‘(1) In Schedule 10A to VATA 1994 (face-value vouchers), after paragraph 7 insert—
	“Exclusion of single purpose vouchers
	7A Paragraphs 2 to 4, 6 and 7 do not apply in relation to the issue, or any subsequent supply, of a face-value voucher that represents a right to receive goods or services of one type which are subject to a single rate of VAT.”
	(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) has effect in relation to supplies of face-value vouchers issued on or after 10 May 2012.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies where—
	(a) a face-value voucher issued before 10 May 2012 is used on or after that date to obtain goods or services,
	(b) paragraphs 2 to 4, 6 and 7 of Schedule 10A to VATA 1994 would not have applied in relation to the issue, or any subsequent supply, of the voucher because of paragraph 7A of that Schedule if the voucher had been issued on or after 10 May 2012, and
	(c) VAT is not payable under the law of another member State on the supply of the voucher to the user.
	(4) The use of the voucher is to be treated for the purposes of VATA 1994 as a supply of the goods or services by the person from whom they are obtained to the user of the voucher.’.—(Mr Gauke.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3—Sixth form colleges (exemption from VAT) —
	‘In Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Exemptions), in Group 6 (Education), the following shall be added at the end of Note (1) (description of eligible body)—
	“(g) a sixth form college”.’.
	New clause 10—VAT: review —
	‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully reviewed the impact of any such Order on jobs, living standards and businesses, making reference to the HMRC Consultation “VAT: Addressing Borderline Anomalies”, and placed a copy of the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.
	New clause 12—Rate of VAT—
	‘(1) In section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Rate of VAT) for “20 per cent.” substitute “17.5 per cent.”.
	(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect from Royal Assent and shall expire at such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.’.
	Government amendment 17.
	Government new schedule 1—‘Categorisation of supplies.
	Government amendments 18 to 20.

David Gauke: A number of VAT measures are to be debated today. To help the House, let me outline how I intend to deal with them. I will first address new clause 4, which relates to VAT on face-value vouchers, before turning to Government amendment 17 and new schedule 1, which address VAT anomalies. I am also conscious that a number of new clauses have been tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, which I will respond to more fully later in the debate. I will also address amendments 18 to 20, which are consequential amendments dealing with VAT anomalies.
	New clause 4 is a Government change to protect revenue. It guards against the possibility of widespread VAT avoidance by the use of so-called single-purpose face-value vouchers. Because of the seriousness of the threat, I announced the change by way of a written ministerial statement on 10 May. Following a decision by the European Court of Justice in May, we need to amend our legislation as it relates to single-purpose face-value vouchers, such as phone cards, so that VAT is due when such vouchers are issued.
	We need to act with immediate effect to prevent a loophole due to the mismatch between the ECJ decision and current UK legislation. This could occur because individuals could argue that VAT cannot be collected on redemption by virtue of the Court’s decision, and it cannot be collected on issue by virtue of UK legislation. Therefore, the new clause protects around £200 million of revenue a year and guards against avoidance that could otherwise run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
	The changes made by new clause 4 will remove single-purpose face-value vouchers from the UK’s VAT regime. For face-value vouchers more generally, normal VAT rules will apply and they will be taxed when they are first sold. There is also a transitional rule to ensure the taxation of vouchers that were issued before 10 May but used to pay for goods and services after that date, other than where that would lead to double taxation.
	It might be helpful to hon. Members if I provide a little background to the new clause. As I have said, the issue arose in connection with a recent decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the VAT treatment of cross-border supplies of single-purpose vouchers, in this case phone cards supplied by a business in the UK to customers in other member states. Most member states tax single-purpose vouchers when they are issued, but in the UK the issue is disregarded and VAT becomes due only when the vouchers are used to obtain the underlying goods or services. This treatment is welcomed by UK businesses, because it delays the point at which they have to account for VAT, so creating a cash-flow advantage and an absolute saving on those vouchers that are issued but never redeemed.
	However, in the case before the European Court of Justice, the business concerned complained that the difference in treatment between the UK and some other member states caused double taxation, because VAT was due in the member state where the card was sold to the final consumer and again in the UK when it was used to pay for telephone calls. The Court found against the UK’s approach in such a way that, until UK law was changed, suppliers of single-purpose face-value vouchers could have escaped VAT altogether. In the current market, that would have led to a tax loss of £200 million a year.
	In addition, if UK law had not been changed there would have been the risk of widespread avoidance involving the use of single-purpose vouchers, which could have led to a significant loss of tax.
	To give an example, a car manufacturer could have issued a face-value voucher for a new car of £15,000, which the customer could then redeem at his local dealership. UK law said that there was no tax on the issue of the voucher, and the Court of Justice of the European Union said that there was no supply at redemption and, therefore, no tax. That may be an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem that could arise in a variety of retail scenarios.
	The changes that new clause 4 make would remove single-purpose face-value vouchers from the UK’s VAT regime. For face-value vouchers more generally, this means that normal VAT rules will apply, and such vouchers will be taxed when first sold. There is also a transitional rule to ensure the taxation of vouchers that were issued before 10 May but used to pay for goods or services after that date, other than when that would lead to double taxation, but the Court’s definition of what constitutes a single-purpose voucher allowed us to retain the UK’s treatment for most vouchers.
	The Court took the view that a single-purpose voucher is one that can be used to obtain goods or services of only one type, and which are subject to a single rate. Single-purpose face-value vouchers that are for one type of good or service form only a small proportion of the overall market for face-value vouchers, because most face-value vouchers can be exchanged for a range of goods or services. For example, a cinema voucher may be exchanged for tickets as well as for confectionary. Both the entry to see the film and the confectionary make suppliers liable to standard-rate VAT, but as they cannot be said to be of the same type the voucher is not caught by the judgment. We therefore expect the change to affect a relatively small number of businesses, and I hope that that explanation is helpful to the House.
	In conclusion on face-value vouchers, the new clause is a proportionate response to the significant risk of tax loss arising from the use of single-purpose vouchers. It is carefully targeted against the risks and retains the VAT treatment for the great majority of vouchers sold in this country, and I commend it to the House.
	Amendment 17 and new schedule 1 relate to the categorisation of suppliers for the purposes of value added tax. New schedule 1 would implement the changes announced at the Budget, which have been refined in the light of consultation, to address anomalies and loopholes in the area of VAT liability. The VAT system contains a number of anomalies along the borderlines of VAT exemptions and VAT zero rates, and addressing some of those anomalies and loopholes is precisely what the Chancellor announced at the Budget.
	The Government announced at the Budget that they were introducing a number of measures to address some of those VAT anomalies, reducing uncertainty, costs for business and for HMRC, and raising revenue. On Budget day, we proposed a number of measures and launched a consultation to engage stakeholders and to listen to their ideas. The measures that we announced proposed to clarify the treatment of catering to ensure
	that all hot takeaway food is taxed, and to clarify the meaning of “premises” in the context of whether food is consumed on or off a supplier’s premises.
	We proposed also to tax sports nutrition drinks to ensure that all sports drinks receive the same tax treatment, and to remove self-storage from exemption in order to ensure that all suppliers of storage receive the same tax treatment and to counter avoidance.

Nigel Mills: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Gauke: I certainly will, although at this point I am just setting out what we set out at the Budget. I will turn to each individual measure in more detail in a moment and happily give way to my hon. Friend at that point.
	We propose to remove the anomaly whereby approved alterations to certain listed buildings are zero-rated while alterations to other buildings and repairs to and maintenance on all buildings are standard-rated. We included transitional arrangements for alteration works to listed buildings which had been contracted before the Budget, and we wanted to put beyond doubt the fact that VAT applies to the rental of hairdressers’ chairs.
	Finally, we proposed to ensure that holiday caravans are taxed consistently at the standard rate of VAT. The proposal, as set out in the consultation document, was that all the changes would take effect from 1 October via secondary legislation, supported by anti-forestalling provisions in this Bill. The consultation was opened on 21 March, and overall HMRC received some 1,500 responses. Owing to the volume of interest in the consultation, we decided to extend it, and since it has closed we have reflected fully on the points made during the process.
	As the House will be aware, in two areas—hot food that is cooling down naturally and static holiday caravans—the Budget proposals created a high degree of business uncertainty, so the Government wanted to let people know our preferred course of action as soon as possible; we did that on 28 May. Last Thursday, we published a consultation response document and tabled the new schedule setting out our approach to all the measures on which we consulted. We stand by the rationale for removing anomalies, but have made several refinements, including those we announced on 28 May. They are intended to improve the policy and reflect the practical concerns raised in the consultation.

Diana Johnson: HMRC produced a document on the impact of the caravan tax, but can the Minister provide enlightenment on the impact of the 5% VAT imposition? There are no figures now on how many jobs will be lost and by how much demand for static caravans will decrease, and I was hoping that the Treasury had worked that out.

David Gauke: Clearly there is a substantial difference between 20% VAT and 5% VAT. We set out our estimates in relation to the 20% rate, and some of the concerns that people took from what HMRC set out were, I think, somewhat greater than the reality warranted, because the impact set out and the assumption regarding the reduction in demand related solely to that element to which the change from zero-rated to standard-rated
	applied. On many caravans that are sold, the VAT is recovered—VAT already applies to an element of the price of a static caravan: that of the fixtures and fittings.
	We do not think the impact of the 5% rate is likely to be substantial. In the usual course of business there are tax changes—national insurance contributions and rates are the subject of regular fluctuations—and in many cases the VAT change may well be absorbed. In addition, we have given industry much more time by deciding not to implement the change until April next year. Caravan manufacturers will have the opportunity to sell more caravans in advance of next year’s summer season—the information we have is that spring tends to be the busiest period. The overall impact on the industry is therefore unlikely to be significant.
	Before discussing each of the anomalies and saying more about static caravans, I would like to give the House a little bit of history about the VAT system. As I am sure all hon. Members know, the VAT system was introduced in 1973 and amendments and adjustments were being made as early as 1974. The then Labour Government added confectionary, soft drinks, ice cream, potato crisps and certain other savoury snacks—

Mr Speaker: Order. My ears pricked up when the Minister suggested he might furnish the House with what he gently described as “a little bit” of information about VAT. In offering to the House—in a public-spirited fashion, I am sure—a potted history of the value added tax system, I am sure that he will have regard to the new clause that he is presenting.

David Gauke: I certainly will, Mr Speaker. I did say I would give a little history and, following your guidance, I will focus on the little.
	I hope it helps the House if I explain that, in the almost 40 years in which we have had VAT, there have been changes from time to time. There were changes in the VAT on building alterations in 1982 and 1984, on hot takeaway food in 1984 and on newspaper and magazine advertising in 1985—I could go on, Mr Speaker, but let me move on.
	I am sure that hon. Members are conscious of the ongoing debates on whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit. It is a regular pub quiz question, Mr Speaker; I am almost tempted to try it on you this afternoon. There was a question on a Radio 4 quiz about the amount of potato in a Pringle. I highlight those points because there are complexities and anomalies in the tax system and addressing that is the purpose behind the new schedule and the policy behind the announcements in the Budget, not the least of which related to hot food. It is fair to say that the current rules on the VAT liability of hot takeaway food have been made complex and unfair by a patchwork of different legal decisions over the decades, which is very much what we are debating today.
	VAT has always applied to food consumed on the supplier’s premises, notably in restaurants and cafés, and it was extended to hot takeaway food in 1984. The definition of “hot takeaway food” in the 1984 legislation is that the food
	“has been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature; and…is above that temperature at the time it is provided to the customer.”
	There have been repeated efforts since the 1980s to chip away at that boundary. A number of businesses have argued in litigation that although the food that they provide to their customers is hot and is taken away, it should not be taxed as hot takeaway food but should be zero-rated.
	Some have successfully argued that the purpose in heating the food was not to provide their customers with food to be eaten hot and that they heated their food for other purposes—for example, for hygiene reasons, to finish the cooking process, to provide evidence of freshness, to create an aroma or to improve appearance, crispiness or texture. Those arguments have not always been successful, but when they have been they have allowed some businesses to secure zero rating for a range of hot food products such as hot rotisserie chickens, meat pies, pasties and panini.
	However, other businesses have continued to apply VAT to the similar hot food products that they sell. They have accepted, or the courts have ruled, that their purpose in heating hot food products is so that the customers can eat them hot. Under the current rules, a small independent fish and chip shop will have to charge VAT on its hot chicken and hot pies, but a major supermarket will argue that its rotisserie chickens or heated pies are zero-rated.
	The current rules mean that many customers simply do not know whether they are being charged VAT on their hot food, because the treatment currently depends on a particular supplier’s purpose in heating the food, and identical products can have different VAT treatment. The new rules that we are introducing in new schedule 1 will ensure a level playing field. The taxation of hot food will be the same whether the supplier has used a hot cabinet to keep food hot so that it can be eaten hot or to ensure enticing aromas.
	During the consultation, many concerns were expressed about bakery products such as Cornish pasties, which are not kept hot after being cooked but are left to cool down naturally. As those products are sold while they are cooling down naturally, under the changes as originally announced their VAT liability would change when they reached ambient temperature and were no longer hot. As has been previously announced, we accepted that the implied requirement to test the temperature of such products at the point of sale could cause practical difficulties, so the revised legislation takes a slightly different approach to creating the level playing field.
	The new definition of “hot food” retains the condition that the food is hot when provided to the customer. It also retains the current criterion of the supplier’s purpose in heating the food, but adds a number of other criteria to define other circumstances in which hot food will be standard-rated. Those additional criteria are that the food is either heated to order, kept hot after being heated, sold in special heat-retaining packaging or other packaging specifically designed for hot food, or advertised or marketed as hot.

Nigel Mills: My hon. Friend refers to the marketing of such things as sold hot. Will he confirm that a baker who markets something as freshly baked would not fall foul of this provision, given that presumably when something is freshly baked it is hot? I think that the intention is that, say, a freshly baked sausage roll that is
	cooling down would not be subject to VAT, but if that marketing term were used it could perhaps be caught by the provision.

David Gauke: The final details as to what exactly will or will not constitute marketing something as hot will be set out in the HMRC guidance. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s perfectly reasonable point that something that is presented essentially as fresh, but cooling, is different from something that is clearly presented as hot at the point at which one purchases it.

Stephen Gilbert: I am tempted to ask my hon. Friend whether he knows how many different chocolate eyes a gingerbread man must have to go from being zero-rated to standard-rated. The answer is on HMRC’s website.
	On packaging, new schedule 1 uses the wording:
	“whether or not the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose”.
	There is some ambiguity as to whether a simple paper bag might be caught by that definition. Can the Minister assure us that people will be able to get their pies and pasties in a paper bag from the bakery without their being standard-rated?

David Gauke: The purpose of that wording relates to packaging that is specifically designed for the retention of heat. For example, hon. Members will all have experience of a paper bag with a foil interior that is used for such purposes. I do not think that a simple paper bag would fall into that category. In most people’s experience, pasties and suchlike are generally left on shelves rather than contained within bags while in the shop. I hope that that provides some clarification.

Catherine McKinnell: We have arrived at this change after 20-odd years in which, through various legal challenges, we have come to our current conclusions on this aspect of VAT. Can the Minister assure us that we are not facing another 20 years of litigation in order to get these finer details clarified?

David Gauke: One can never rule out the fact that some people will be litigious and try to take a creative view of any particular guidance. However, we believe that we have reached the right position after much consultation and discussion with the industry and with hon. Members, many of whom have been very engaged in the matter. I look around the House and see at least two Members who have been in my office to make representations on this point. We believe that we have reached a position that is sustainable and fair, and that is what we are putting to the House in the new schedule. The additional criteria will ensure that hot food will generally be taxed at the standard rate of VAT, but if food that would be zero-rated when cold is bought when it happens to be cooling down, but is not yet cold, it will still be zero-rated provided that it does not meet any of the criteria that I set out. These changes will add further tests to make the relief less open to abuse and provide a level playing field for all businesses supplying their customers with hot food.
	Turning to the issue of holiday caravans, which we have touched on briefly, the VAT zero rate was originally intended to apply to the sale of caravans used only for residential purposes. To achieve that objective, the rules drawn up in the 1970s applied tax only to the sale of smaller caravans that could legally be towed on UK roads by a typical family car. However, over the years, an increasing number of large caravans have been used for holiday purposes. Those caravans inadvertently benefit from the VAT zero rate that was intended for residential caravans. That has led to widespread inconsistency in the VAT treatment of the sale of holiday caravans.
	Under the current legislation, any caravan wider than 2.55 metres or longer than 7 metres is zero-rated as a residential caravan. The Government propose to replace the definition of a zero-rated caravan based on size with a new definition based on whether the caravan has been designed for residential use. To achieve that, we propose a new test that links the zero-rating with British Standard 3632, which indicates that the caravan has been designed and manufactured for continuous, all-year-round occupation and is therefore suitable for residential accommodation.
	We consulted on whether the additional criteria should be added to ensure that the zero rate applies only to caravans intended for residential use. Given the reaction to the proposal, we decided that rather than having a single dividing line between a zero rate of VAT on residential caravans and a rate of 20% on static holiday caravans, static holiday caravans should be subject to VAT at the reduced rate of 5%. Static residential caravans—those that meet BS 3632, or early equivalents in the case of second-hand sales of older caravans—will remain zero-rated, as per the Budget proposal. We do not intend to restrict the zero rate further by adding additional criteria.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister give way on that point?

David Gauke: There is a little more that I was going to say that may be helpful to the hon. Lady, but I will give way at this point.

Diana Johnson: I wonder whether it is sensible to make decisions on tax policy based on manufacturing standards. Manufacturing standards will change and no doubt get better, so is that a sensible way of operating tax policy?

David Gauke: In this particular circumstance, the manufacturing standard provides a better definition or borderline than the size criteria that I set out. It was put to us in the consultation that it would be very easy for manufacturers to do a bit more here and there, and that a static caravan that was once not BS 3632-compliant suddenly would be. When we investigated that, we concluded that it was quite expensive and difficult to meet BS 3632. Genuine residential caravans meet that standard, but non-residential, holiday vans do not. It seems to be an effective borderline. Of course these matters will be kept under review, but we think that this is a sensible conclusion and one that the industry recognises. The evidence that the industry has put to us is that BS 3632 adequately distinguishes between residential caravans and static caravans.
	It is worth pointing out that BS 3632 caravans tend to be more expensive and are built to a higher specification. For those reasons, they tend to be used more in the residential market than in the holiday market. It is worth coming back to the intention of the 1970s definition for zero-rated caravans.
	We recognise that static holiday caravans fall in a grey area between residential property and temporary holiday accommodation, which have different tax regimes. We have therefore produced the fair compromise of a 5% VAT rate. The argument was sometimes made to us that static holiday caravans should be treated like a second home, on which VAT is not paid. However, council tax is paid on a second home, which is not the case with static holiday caravans. Imposing the council tax regime on static caravan homes would have placed a significant burden on their owners and holiday parks, so we believe that we have made a fair compromise. As I said earlier, to give the industry more time to adjust, the measure will be delayed until 6 April 2013. All the other measures that we are discussing today will proceed as planned on 1 October this year.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about the impact that the current proposals will have on the industry. Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury has not yet calculated that impact?

David Gauke: We assessed what the impact would be if VAT was at 20%, and obviously 5% is a quarter of that, so one can draw correlations. Most industries supply VAT-inclusive durable goods at a profit, so it is reasonable to apply VAT in this case. The impact that we originally set out in the tax information and impact note at the time of the Budget will be significantly lessened by the change to the 5% rate, particularly bearing in mind that there is already a full 20% rate on a fair proportion of static caravans because of the durable goods contained within them.

Andrew Percy: We can partly assess what the impact will be from what manufacturers themselves have said, which is that they do not expect the 5% rate to have an impact of any great severity on them. However, it is important to recognise that there needs to be stability, so an assurance that the Government will not raise the rate in future would be welcome, as would an undertaking that there will be an assessment of the rate after a year or two to see whether it has had any impact. Generally, the industry has welcomed it.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry has welcomed the change to our policy. As we would expect, it does not anticipate the 5% rate to have a significant impact on it. As far as the stability of the rate is concerned, the standard wording is to say that all decisions are for the Chancellor and all taxes are kept under review, but I do not anticipate that the Government will return to this issue in any great hurry. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased about that. Were we to do so, I have no doubt that he would make strong representations once again. I hope he will take some comfort from that.

Diana Johnson: The National Caravan Council has said that the caravan industry is fragile after the problems that it experienced in 2008. Based on the figures in the KPMG report, there would have been 6,000 job losses if the imposition of the 20% rate had gone ahead. Am I right to assume that with the 5% rate, the Treasury is working on the assumption that the impact will be a quarter of that number, which means 1,500 job losses?

David Gauke: Perhaps it will help the hon. Lady if I run through the situation. We have to raise a certain number of taxes, and VAT probably does less harm to the economy than almost any other tax that one could mention, whether it be employers’ national insurance contributions, which reduce the number of jobs, or corporation tax, which reduces investment. There is an issue with any tax.
	On this particular policy, however, we are talking about a 5% rate on 80% of the price of a caravan, the other 20% being standard rated already, and on 85% of sales, the other 15% being standard rated already—or rather the purchaser being able to recover input taxes on it. There is then an elasticity of demand, and the 5% rate might result in a 5% reduction in demand, but of course that involves various assumptions and some uncertainty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, however, much of the industry does not think it will have a significant impact.

Simon Hart: I wish to reinforce that point. The site operators, of which, as the Exchequer Secretary knows, there are many in south and west Wales, would also come to the same view—although not ideal, they thoroughly understand the situation and recognise it as one they can manage for the foreseeable future. They much welcome the news that it will not be revisited in the foreseeable future.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tax is but one of the various factors that will have an impact on demand, and VAT is but one tax. I shall not dwell on it, Mr Speaker, but I should mention that the Government are putting in place a much more competitive corporation tax regime, which will be to the advantage of caravan manufacturers and many others.
	I shall touch briefly on alterations to listed buildings. The reaction to our announced changes to VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings demonstrated the need for the measure on the grounds of simplification alone. The consultation and media coverage has highlighted the huge uncertainty over whether an item of building work is an alteration or a repair. The purpose of the measure is to avoid the need for such discussions by applying the same VAT liability to all alterations, repairs and maintenance. Repairs and maintenance to all buildings, including listed buildings, have always been liable to VAT, and alterations to non-listed buildings have been since 1984. The Budget announcement changes none of that, although a zero rate currently applies to alterations to protected buildings—mostly listed dwellings but also scheduled monuments and listed buildings used for charitable and other residential purposes.
	For listed buildings, the borderline between alteration and repair or maintenance is a major source of confusion. The Budget announcement has no impact on the repair and maintenance of listed buildings, which have always
	been liable to VAT, so there will be no change to the VAT treatment of repairs to thatched roofs or steeples, contrary to what has been reported in the press. The Budget decision also reflects our view that grants can provide a more flexible mechanism than VAT for providing specific financial support for the heritage sector. We have increased the funding for the listed places of worship scheme and broadened its scope so that churches and other listed places of worship can claim grants to offset the impact of VAT on their alterations, repairs and maintenance.
	The Budget proposal for alterations to listed buildings includes transitional arrangements, and, following the consultation, we have decided to make these more generous. As with the Budget proposal, the transitional arrangements will cover cases where written contracts had been entered into before Budget day 2012 or, in the case of the first grant of buildings that have been substantially reconstructed, where 10% of the work had been completed before Budget day. We have now agreed that they should also apply where listed building consent had been applied for before the Budget, and the transitional arrangements will be extended so that, where a project qualifies, zero rating can apply until 30 September 2015. These extensions will mean that the zero rate will continue to apply for most alteration projects where work was close to starting at the time of the Budget announcement.
	Let me turn to the Budget proposal for self-storage.

Catherine McKinnell: I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow, but I want to take him back to listed buildings. He spoke about grants being available to churches for alterations and repairs. However, my understanding is that there is concern that what is proposed is more of a rebate or reclaim of tax spent, rather than a grant that would be available before the alterations and repairs are undertaken. Will he clarify what the position will be?

David Gauke: The first point to make is that the increased funding for the listed places of worship scheme was entered into after consultation with the Church of England, which led for other religious groups in this matter, and I understand that they are satisfied with the arrangements that have been reached. The listed places of worship scheme, which the previous Government set up, has been extended to allow recovery costs relating to VAT for both repairs and alterations. It offers church groups, for example, an opportunity to recover the costs they would otherwise incur, but is now much more generously funded, and a much greater proportion of VAT costs will be able to be reclaimed. Indeed, VAT costs should be able to be reclaimed in full for the time being, such is the scale of the support we have made available for the listed places of worship scheme.
	It is perhaps worth pointing out that we always made it clear that we would increase the listed places of worship scheme, because of the increased costs that were going to be placed on churches, but after further discussions, with the Church of England in particular, we realised that the amount we had initially said would be adequate was not adequate, and we increased it. However, to deal with the hon. Lady’s specific question,
	what is proposed is indeed a reclaim arrangement. That is how it will work, and that is how it worked in the last Parliament as well.

Catherine McKinnell: Will the Minister clarify, therefore, whether he has received any expressions of concern about churches, which often rely on fundraising to undertake works, having to raise additional money, which they will then have to reclaim from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or about the additional burden that this will place on what are already quite stretched resources?

David Gauke: I understand the point the hon. Lady raises. The Church is satisfied with the arrangements. She is suggesting that in order to fund a project, a church group would need to fund the cost, plus 20%. That is not how it should work, because the scheme will be sufficiently flexible to ensure that a church group will have the funding in time, so that it does not have to raise an additional 20% or so. I have had considerable conversations with Church representatives on this issue, and I am not getting representations that they are concerned about that point.

Catherine McKinnell: I have just one last question about this issue. Has HMRC undertaken any assessment of the additional bureaucracy and administrative costs that will result from all churches having to engage in the process?

David Gauke: The advantage of the way in which we have introduced this measure—through the listed places of worship scheme—is that there is already a mechanism in place for providing grants for repairs. That is something we inherited, and although I cannot say this about everything we inherited, it is quite helpful. We anticipate that there will be a monthly repayment process through the listed places of worship scheme. With regard to the hon. Lady’s concern about cash flow, the main point to make is that the Church is content with the arrangements.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his clarification on that matter. I understand that if churches want to reclaim VAT in such circumstances, such a claim will have to apply to work on the footprint of the original construction. When work is done not only to the old part of the church but also to the new, will it be possible to differentiate a claim so that the work done on the old part and that carried out on the new extension can be treated differently?

David Gauke: The arrangements that will be in place following the legislation will mean that repairs and alterations will be chargeable for VAT. However, the listed places of worship scheme will apply to both types of work. It has been the case for some time that repairs involved the payment of VAT. The listed places of worship scheme will enable people to reclaim the VAT costs relating to those repairs. An extension—which is an alteration, rather than a repair—will now have VAT charged to it, but it will be possible to reclaim it through that same scheme. The scheme is now more generously funded than it was before the Budget, which means that a higher proportion of the costs that the churches
	would have incurred will now be able to be reclaimed. We have taken steps that the churches have widely welcomed.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sorry to have missed the beginning of the Minister’s remarks on this subject. I was actually checking up on certain aspects of a similar issue in my constituency. He said that the Church of England was content with the arrangements, but I hope that he will accept that it is not just the Church of England that is involved. I have a lot of churches, places of worship and listed buildings in my constituency, and I have been contacted by a church that was in the advanced stages of preparing to carry out work that could be seriously affected by the proposals. Will the Minister guarantee that, if the funding for the scheme does not meet the requirements, he will look again at the level of funding provided? Will he also monitor the scheme closely to ensure that no extra bureaucracy is introduced that could delay projects that would otherwise go ahead?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that not just the Church of England is involved. I said earlier, however, that the Church of England had led on behalf of all the churches on this matter. On his second point, we have made the transitional rules more generous for churches that were close to commencing work at the time of the Budget. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case in his constituency without knowing all the details, but I think that he will find that many cases in which plans had reached an advanced stage will benefit from the transitional rules. He mentioned the funding for the scheme. We believe that this is a generous settlement, but we will of course keep such matters under review. He also mentioned bureaucracy. The scheme is organised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but the Treasury will also take a close interest in it. The two Departments have worked together very effectively on this matter, and we are keen to ensure that the scheme works in an adequate way. I would underline the point that the representations that we have received from the churches suggest that they are happy with the arrangements.

Frank Field: The Minister says that the two Departments are now working closely together on the scheme. Was there a similarly close working relationship when the Treasury was thinking up the proposal? Did the DCMS know about the proposal and approve it—before it was modified, of course?

David Gauke: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into dangerous, and perhaps more interesting, territory. All I would say to him is that all decisions are for the Chancellor, although of course the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was involved at an appropriate level.
	The Budget proposal for self-storage changed the liability of supplies of facilities for self-storage from exempt to taxable. Following consultation, we planned to avoid creating a competitive advantage for those larger operators with more expensive facilities. These businesses can partially mitigate the impact of the change by using the capital goods scheme to claim back some of the VAT they had previously paid on the purchase of these facilities, whereas smaller businesses with less expensive
	facilities cannot. We will therefore make a separate provision by statutory instrument to amend the capital goods scheme so that self-storage providers affected by the measure whose individual capital items are worth less than a £250,000 threshold for the scheme can opt into it and have the same input tax recovery benefits as larger providers with capital items that would already qualify for the scheme.
	We also propose to ensure that the storage of live animals will remain exempt, as the original proposal might inadvertently have applied VAT to stabling, and we propose to introduce an anti-avoidance provision so that if the storage is used by a third party with the permission of the person who contracts for the storage, it is taxed in the same way as if it were self-storage. This will prevent someone from avoiding taxation by getting a third party to contract with the supplier. We have revised the exclusion for storage facilities provided to persons connected with the supplier so that it is more directly targeted on facilities that are subject to the capital goods scheme. This fine-tuning reflects the benefit of consulting and listening to what respondents say, but it is does not undermine the rationale for the measure.
	For hairdressers’ chairs, the schedule provides a clearer description of the services typically provided under a chair rental agreement and excludes services that could legitimately be provided with a simple supply of a right over land. The schedule also reflects a change to make it clear that the supply of a whole building to a hairdresser will not become taxable unless it is supplied along with other goods or services.
	Finally, regarding the measure to apply VAT to all sports drinks and to clarify the definition of premises for the purposes of determining whether food is consumed on or off the suppliers’ premises, we are proceeding as planned in the Budget.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. On the sports drink issue, I am sure he will remember the old milk advert suggesting that if children did not drink their milk, they would end up playing for Accrington Stanley rather than Liverpool. The gap between those two teams might be a bit closer nowadays, but the idea was that milk improves physical performance. Will my hon. Friend confirm that an ordinary pint of milk will not be caught within these provisions?

David Gauke: I confirm that I remember the adverts and that milk will not be standard rated for these purposes. I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks the Chancellor made in respect, I think, of the 2010 Budget—that everyday essentials will not become standard rated. However great the advance of Accrington Stanley and the decline of Liverpool, that will remain the case.

Cathy Jamieson: Will the Minister provide a bit more clarity, as I believe the industry has been extremely concerned about the definition of a sports drink as opposed to sports nutrition products? I understand that some drinks would not be caught within the definition, but that some products legitimately used by athletes—by weight-lifting participants, for example—would be. Given the concern about it, further clarification from the Minister would help.

David Gauke: The broad point is that sports drinks—such as Lucozade and others—are standard rated and have been for some time, and that sports nutrition drinks marketed as such will now become standard rated. We believe that that is fair. These products can be distinguished from a pint of milk or a milk drink not designed or marketed for sports nutrition purposes. Nothing in the consultation responses calls us to query the rationale for the measures or to amend the draft legislation other than through a minor amendment to tidy up the wording.

Catherine McKinnell: Can the Minister reassure me that his proposal will not lead to the same riddles and illogicalities that arose from the original pasty tax proposal, meaning that the same product marketed or packaged in a different way could end up attracting a different rate of VAT? Will he also tell us what consultations he has had with the industry?

David Gauke: We have completed a period of consultation and received a number of representations. In recent days, I have met representatives of GlaxoSmithKline and listened to their concerns. As for the hon. Lady’s first question, when products are aimed at different markets but clearly targeted at particular consumer groups, I think it reasonable to view them in the light of some of the competing products that are aimed at exactly the same market. Our research suggests that most sports drinks are clearly targeted at particular markets, and their VAT treatment will follow from that.

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister has not really explained why the Government should want to target a sports industry or sports-related products for tax purposes when much more unhealthy products might remain tax-free. Will he clarify that?

David Gauke: If the Opposition are setting out the principle that whether or not VAT applies should depend on the healthiness or otherwise of the products involved—which brings us back to hot food—we may have to engage in a slightly different debate, and I am not sure that either of us wants to go in that direction.

Catherine McKinnell: rose—

David Gauke: To be fair, I will let the hon. Lady clarify her position.

Catherine McKinnell: I am happy to clarify the fact that I am not setting out any particular policy position on whether sports goods or health products should be targeted for tax. However, the Minister appears to be saying that although the milk that is marketed for general consumption is VAT-free, if it is marketed for sports-related consumption it will be subject to VAT. Will he explain that policy?

David Gauke: VAT is charged on all beverages. Typical sports drinks which are consumed primarily to rehydrate or quench thirst are already taxed accordingly at the standard rate, but some sports drinks companies have won court rulings that their products are not beverages because of their nutritional content and because they are not designed to quench thirst. The changes that we are introducing will ensure that all sports drinks are subject to the same VAT treatment whether they are consumed
	for rehydration or for nutritional purposes, because they are targeted at much the same group, and we think it only right to apply the same approach to consumers. The argument for the zero-rating of food is that it should apply to everyday essentials, but it is difficult to apply that argument to sports and nutritional drinks.

Julie Hilling: I am desperately trying to understand what the Minister is saying will happen to sports and nutrition products. Is he saying that all drinks will now be subject to 20% VAT? What about other nutritional products that are not sold in liquid form?

David Gauke: Let me try to be helpful to the hon. Lady—not for the first time during our deliberations, I hope. We propose that drinks aimed at the sports nutrition market will be standard rated. We are not applying the same approach to meal-replacement drinks. There is a clear distinction between them, as one is more closely aligned to food than to sports drinks.
	New schedule 1 will remove some of the anomalies in our VAT system. It will raise revenue and reduce the administrative burden on HMRC and businesses. It shows that the Government are willing to listen to practical concerns and to amend the proposal accordingly, without undermining the rationale for the measures. It will help to remove the means by which some businesses secure for themselves an unfair advantage over others. I commend the new schedule to the House.
	Turning briefly to amendments 18, 19 and 20, as I have explained, the consultation period was extended because we wanted to ensure that we fully reflected on the points raised before finalising our decisions. We have decided to introduce these changes through the Finance Bill. As a consequence, schedule 26, introducing the anti-forestalling provisions for self-storage and approved alterations to listed buildings, needs to be amended by amendments 18 to 20 so that it refers to the changes being made in the new schedule. I commend these consequential amendments to the House.
	I have spoken for over an hour—doesn’t time fly when one’s having fun, Mr Speaker! I hope I have given a helpful introduction to the debate, setting out some of the details to the House, and I hope these proposed provisions will be added to the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I am sure we are all indebted to the Minister for the informative character of his contribution —and, of course, for his oratory.

Catherine McKinnell: I will speak to new clauses 10 and 12, as well as the Government amendments that the Minister has already set out for us in quite some detail today.
	The Opposition’s new clause 10 seeks to put a stop to the chaotic farce of ill-thought-through VAT changes being slapped on items from the pasty to the caravan, from haircuts to church alterations—imposed, defended, downgraded and then, in some cases, eventually quietly removed by Ministers during the parliamentary recess, once they realised quite how ridiculous the changes were to begin with, particularly given the current economic climate. We simply ask the Government not to meddle
	with VAT exemptions until they have carried out a proper assessment and worked out exactly what the impact of any change would be on jobs, living standards and businesses.
	We assume that, before imposing a 20% tax, the Government will do their sums, work out who would be affected, consult them and think long and hard about whether such a change was a good idea. Our new clause 12 seeks to reverse the VAT bombshell, which, as I am sure many Members will recall, the Liberal Democrats shouted so loudly about before the election, and before they all subsequently discovered that they actually supported raising the 20% rate after all. That was a surprise all around, even to themselves, I think. In fact, everyone’s surprise about that was surpassed only by the discovery that the Liberal Democrats had also been in favour of £9,000 tuition fees all along.
	Labour is clear that higher VAT hits the poor harder than the rich. It drives up the cost of living at a time when people are already feeling the squeeze, and it takes money out of people’s pockets and off the high street at a time when businesses are crying out for spending to drive growth. Our five-point plan for jobs and growth calls for VAT to return to 17.5% on a temporary basis until the economy is strong enough to cope with a rise. That would give £450 a year back to couples with children, to give the economy a boost and to drive growth.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady will of course recall that we had this exact same debate during last year’s Finance Bill, and when the House divided on a Plaid Cymru-Scottish National party motion her party abstained. Can she explain her party’s damascene conversion in tabling the same amendment to this year’s Finance Bill?

Catherine McKinnell: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is talking about the debate that we had on raising VAT from 17.5 to 20%, because that is what we are addressing today?

Jonathan Edwards: An amendment last year sought to do exactly what the measure she is arguing in favour of would do. That was presented to the House by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, and the Labour party abstained.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I do not have the full details of the intricacies of that particular debate, but I know that what I am proposing is our policy and we support it. We are going to vote today for this measure to reduce VAT to 17.5%.

David Gauke: Can the hon. Lady explain to the House how much her policy would cost and how she intends to pay for it? Or will it be paid for through additional borrowing?

Catherine McKinnell: That is an interesting question, coming from a Minister who has just justified a temporary delay of the rise in fuel tax that is apparently to be paid for by underspends that are not quantified by the Government, who are in a much better position to provide detailed costings to the House but cannot for their own tax reductions. We have said all along that the Government’s current policies are costing the taxpayer
	more. Borrowing is increasing, not reducing—the Government are borrowing £150 billion more over the spending period—and the benefits bill is sending the economy backwards, not forwards.

David Gauke: The hon. Lady said it was an interesting question. Would she care to answer it?

Catherine McKinnell: I have just answered it. I would be grateful if the Minister could similarly provide detailed costings as to where the Government’s tax reduction for the fuel relief is going to come from. If he were able to do that, we could certainly provide detailed costings of our tax proposal. The point is that the reduction to 17.5% will put money back into people’s pockets, get the economy moving and get growth back into the economy. That will help to bring down borrowing, which is increasing at the moment.

Gavin Williamson: Can the hon. Lady quantify, for the benefit of those in the Chamber, how much that 2.5% reduction would cost?

Catherine McKinnell: I repeat what I said before: the Government’s current policy of increasing VAT to 20% is taking money out of people’s pockets and is causing a slump in demand. It is very strange that these questions are coming from a Government who are borrowing more than they intended over the spending period, not less.

Stephen Gilbert: The hon. Lady mentioned a figure of about £400 a year. What I missed, and what I am hoping she will be able to clarify, is whether that is per person or per family. If we knew that, we might all be able to do the maths as to how much this measure would cost the Exchequer.

Catherine McKinnell: The figure that the hon. Gentleman is looking for is £450 for a couple with children. It would put money back into their pockets, boost the economy and drive growth. Let us not forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that the Government’s tax credit changes will mean that families will be £511 worse off this year and £1,250 a year worse off by 2015.

Andrew Percy: Who would benefit more from a VAT cut, a family earning just above the minimum wage or a millionaire?

Catherine McKinnell: Clearly, a family would gain more from a VAT cut because they spend much more on VAT as a proportion of their household income. The hon. Gentleman’s indignation at that response demonstrates just how much the Government are out of touch with the reality of the effect of their spending plans on households and household incomes. That would explain why this economy is going backwards rather than forwards under the Government’s plans.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend find the interventions of Government Members bizarre? The Government inherited a growing economy and we now have a double-dip recession created totally in Downing street by their efforts to have no other aim than driving down the deficit. They are stifling growth and making ordinary families pay the cost of their economic failure.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and think that the response from Government Members is deeply worrying, as it shows worrying complacency about the direction in which they are taking this country and about the decisions they are making on the economy, which are making things worse, not better.
	Our new clause 12 would reverse the VAT rise immediately and prevent it from rising again—I emphasise this point—until the Government can show that our economy is growing strongly again. That is the right move to get our economy back into growth and out of this double-dip recession. I also want to put on the record that we will oppose the Government’s new schedule 1, which would bring in ill-thought-through and unwelcome VAT changes that, despite the concessions, are still wholly unsatisfactory.

Diana Johnson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the proposals in schedule 1, especially those on the caravan tax, seem to have taken no account of job losses or of the effect on demand when we are in a double-dip recession and will cost the Exchequer more than it would gain in revenue?

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and her focus on the subject of the debate—that is, these deeply worrying and shambolic VAT changes. We have discussed at some length the new proposals that followed the Government’s concessions and we have had the opportunity to question the Minister on them. I share my hon. Friend’s concern at the failure to provide costings for some of the changes and the lack of consideration of the concern about jobs and growth that our new clauses aim to deal with. Those factors need to be given proper consideration and the Government do not appear to have done their homework.

Nigel Mills: New clause 12 would delay the rise to 20% in VAT until there was strong growth in the economy. Can she help us by defining what strong growth would be? What percentage growth might it be? Or would it be growth based on a properly balanced economy rather than a financial services-led boom?

Catherine McKinnell: I could probably answer the hon. Gentleman’s question with just four words: “out of double-dip recession.”
	The Government’s economic credibility, not to mention any reputation for competence they might have had, has taken a massive hit over the VAT changes. They put VAT on pasties and took it away. They put VAT on caravans, then they reduced it to 5%. They put VAT on churches and kept it. Then they invited payment of the charge up front. Churches could claim it back by submitting forms to the Treasury for access to a special fund, which essentially is a big pot of all the money that they paid up front in the first place. What a shambles. Do the Government even know what they are doing any more? They say that their U-turns show that they are listening. When they got it so horrendously wrong, it is good that campaigners were able to get through to them.
	I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked hard to get the Government to listen on the subject of the VAT changes, but is it not all
	too serious to be left to second chances? Do not the people of this country deserve a Government who can get it right first time? People saw in the Budget a true reflection of a Chancellor who tried to sneak through thoughtless changes and got found out.
	Let us look at some of the Government’s tax changes. The selection speaks volumes about this Government. They gave a tax cut to banks and to millionaires, but showed no mercy to people who eat pasties. The pasty tax will go down in history as one of the most incompetent Government debacles ever. The attempt to raise the price of pasties and sausage rolls by 20% was claimed to be necessary to close an anomaly, but was universally seen as evidence of an out-of-touch Government trying their luck and grabbing tax on a food that Ministers never eat. The Save Our Savouries campaign run by The Sun pointed out that caviar is still VAT-exempt. Perhaps we can learn something from that. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his concluding remarks.
	The Prime Minister told us:
	“I’m a pasty eater myself. . . I love a hot pasty”,
	but he gave himself away when he said that his last pasty was from a shop that turned out not to exist. It was just one gaffe after another. The Chancellor ended up giving evidence to the Treasury Committee on how to tell whether a pasty was hot or cold. Members pointed out that because products would be subject to VAT if they were above ambient temperature when bought, pasties could cost different amounts on summer and winter days.

Stephen Gilbert: Notwithstanding some of the flaky accusations the hon. Lady is making against the Government, can she explain why Labour Members will not join in supporting the Government on new schedule 1, which addresses the concerns that were expressed during the consultation process?

Catherine McKinnell: Our position is that we would like none of the VAT changes to be introduced so by voting against new schedule 1 today, as I have already explained, we vote against all the VAT changes.
	As was pointed out, if the pasty counter was near the oven, the ambient temperature would be higher. If it was near the chiller, the ambient temperature may be lower. Greggs’ official consultation document asked whether servers would ultimately have to take the temperature of both the pasty and the surrounding air to determine whether a 20% surcharge should be applied. The proposal was universally and rightly rounded on as ridiculous. Ken McMeikan, the chief executive of Greggs the bakers, which I am proud to say is based in my part of the world, Tyne and Wear, deserves a mention for his excellent campaign against the pasty tax. A massive £30 million was wiped off the value of the company in the week after the Budget as orders were threatened and jobs put at risk. Along with several hundred other bakers, Mr McMeikan delivered a petition to 10 Downing street. He told Ministers:
	“we are the voice of half a million people. We embody their resentment at what this Government is trying to impose against the people’s will. . . ordinary hard working people simply do not want this pasty tax.”
	I visited a local school breakfast club with Mr McMeikan and I know just how committed Greggs is to local schools and community projects. It did not deserve to
	have its business torpedoed by Ministers who are too out of touch ever to have eaten one of its products. Eventually the Government backed down on the pasty tax—they had to because that was the only move they could make—but they left behind them a legacy of arrogant disregard for ordinary people that will not quickly be forgotten. My only hope now is that the U-turn that has been made will be made properly. Representatives of Greggs are still raising concerns that the new wording of the regulations on hot food now state that VAT should be charged if it
	“is provided…in packaging that retains heat (whether or not the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose)”.
	The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) raised the matter with the Minister, but his answer did not provide certainty, so I would be grateful if he would clarify in his reply exactly how the Government will ensure certainty for this slightly battered production market.
	Any sort of paper bag or wrapping could inadvertently help to retain heat, so there is a danger that pasties could still be caught in the regulations and that this whole incompetent mess of U-turns and retractions will all have been for nothing. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to clarify that point and reassure Greggs and other bakers up and down the country that supplying customers with paper napkins, for example, which could inadvertently slow down the cooling process, will not result in an extra 20% charge for their customers.
	Greggs would like confirmation, as I am sure would other bakers across the country, on whether taking trays of baked products from the oven and stacking them in counters that have no other means of heating or heat retention would be considered to be slowing down the cooling process. The practice is used by bakers to minimise food handling and the number of trays in use, but there are genuine concerns in the industry that it could constitute slowing down the cooling process and so incur a VAT charge.
	The Government’s second U-turn was on their attempt to charge 20% VAT on static caravans—[ Interruption. ] I am asked from a sedentary position “Are you only on the second U-turn?” Yes, I am. I venture to guess that caravan holidays, like pasties, are not familiar to most members of the Cabinet. They saw an opportunity to take some extra tax and went ahead without considering the impact on individuals, jobs, growth or tourism. Because of the huge campaign mounted against the policy—I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for that, particularly hon. Members who represent the Hull constituencies, who are particularly concerned about the impact on jobs in their area—the Government backed down, but they are still trying to impose the 5% charge, as the Minister set out in more detail earlier.
	The Treasury’s own figures show that 20% VAT on static caravans would result in a 30% fall in demand. The industry estimates that it would result in 1,000 job losses in manufacturing, excluding the supply chain. We know that at least one factory in the supply chain, Willerby Holiday Homes, put all 700 of its staff on a 90-day consultation as a direct result of the Government’s announcement that it would levy 20% VAT on its product. The National Caravan Council states that 4,300 jobs might be lost in holiday parks, plus another 1,500 jobs from associated suppliers.
	I appreciate that the Minister has sought to give some reassurances on the change and indicated that the Government are listening, to the extent of reducing the VAT rate to 5%. However, he has made it clear today that no actual calculation has been made on the potential impact of the 5% charge, which is of great concern. Even the reduced charge of 5% will mean either that caravan holidays will become more expensive for holidaymakers or that holiday parks will be forced to absorb losses and job cuts. At a time when consumers are already severely squeezed, many people will simply have to go elsewhere. In turn, the whole economy of holiday towns would be hit, with shops, pubs and attractions losing their main business. Is that really what the Government intended?

Graham Stuart: rose —

Catherine McKinnell: I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would answer.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being most generous in giving way. I ask her to note that the National Caravan Council, the industry body, and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association have welcomed the 5% rate. They feel that the Government did listen and that the industry can take on that burden as part of the whole national effort to tackle the vast deficit her party left behind when it left government.

Catherine McKinnell: I am pleased that the industry is “delighted” with a 5% increase in VAT on its products. That is surprising in the circumstances.

Diana Johnson: rose —

Brandon Lewis: rose —

Catherine McKinnell: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who wanted to intervene earlier.

Diana Johnson: I would not say that the industry is “delighted.” I think that it accepts the measure, on the basis that it was very concerned about the 20% figure. My concern as a constituency MP, with 90% of static caravans being built in Hull and the surrounding area, is that there are 43.6 people chasing every vacancy in my constituency. That is the highest figure in the UK, and any job losses are going to be very difficult for my constituents, so that is why I am pressing the Minister to be very clear about the number of job losses that the 5% imposition will bring about. Will the shadow Minister comment on my concerns?

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that rational and considered intervention and appreciate that the industry is willing to accept the change, as it is much easier to bear than the original suggestion of 20%, but that is the point I seek to make. The Minister in his opening remarks confirmed that no assessment has been made of the impact of the 5% increase on the industry, and that is gravely concerning, because, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)
	suggested, the industry needs certainty, security and stability to create the jobs that my hon. Friend is so concerned about.
	The fact that the proposal is being put in place without a proper assessment of what is a lesser impact but still one of 5% is deeply concerning, because the last thing the industry needs is for the measure to be reviewed 12 months down the line, be seen to have had a detrimental impact, and for it to have to go through the whole process all over again.

Brandon Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. In Great Yarmouth, I represent a £500-million-a-year tourism industry, with about 50% of our bed space in static caravans. Our industry was concerned, but its message to me is that it thinks the 5% rate is not only fair, but better than it had hoped for.
	The industry understands the arguments that everyone has to do their bit and that there has been an anomaly for a long time, and feels that the measure is manageable, will not have an impact on its business and is fair. We are very pleased, in fact, that we finally have a Government who say that they will consult and listen, do so and come back with exactly what the industry wants.

Catherine McKinnell: The only point I can make is that the industry suffered the serious blow of having a 20% tax announced. That has been reduced to 5%, which it will obviously welcome, but we propose to remove the VAT changes altogether, because at this particular time the last thing that any industry needs, but particularly the holiday, static caravan and manufacturing industries, is a VAT hike. We need to invest in jobs and growth to get the economy moving, to get out of the double-dip recession that we are in and to get back into growth.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment at the previous intervention? If the proposal to impose that VAT rate had never been made, there would have been no need for consultation or listening—and it would have been far better to have consulted first. What happened to the notion of a proper pre-Budget report, where suggestions could have been made in general terms and then we could have had a consultation? We all sat here listening to a very strong defence of the original proposals only a few months ago.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense and makes her point very forcefully. The Government seem to have tax-grabbed first and consulted later. They have sneaked through changes—the ones they have got away with, they have pocketed and the ones they have been seriously challenged on, particularly by their own Back Benchers, they have had to relent on. But that is no way to conduct tax policy or business.

Julie Hilling: Is my hon. Friend as confused as I am by Government Members saying that their local manufacturers were asking for a 5% increase and demanding to be charged VAT? That is what it sounds like.

Catherine McKinnell: I made that very point when I expressed surprise at the impression being given that the static caravan industry warmly embraces and welcomes the change. A more rational description is that the industry accepts it as a much better deal than the one they were originally given by the Government—a slapped-on VAT increase to 20%, which would certainly have had an impact on jobs and compounded the lack of growth in the economy.
	Once again, the change was announced during a parliamentary recess, the same day as the U-turn on the dreaded pasty tax. As Parliament was not sitting, there was no opportunity for the House to scrutinise the details of the Government’s plan—details such as where the money to pay for the change of heart would come from. The Government have yet to provide an answer to that question. We know the money will come from “underspends” in unidentified Departments, but we do not know where those underspends have occurred, whether they were planned, or why the coalition’s No. 1 priority of deficit reduction is no longer the default destination. The two measures—pasties and caravans—were supposed to raise £70 million, which is now unaccounted for. I hope that someone somewhere knows how to make up those sums. Many ordinary people consider £70 million quite a big hole to fill. How do Government plan to deal with it?
	The third U-turn is the Government’s partial reversal on the so-called church tax. Ministers claimed that, in future, VAT would be payable on alterations to listed buildings, which are currently exempt. Of course, as the Government acknowledged today, half the listed buildings in this country are owned by the Church of England, which pointed out immediately that the change would cost it at least £20 million. Many churches collect donations from their congregation to pay for necessary alterations—often basic alterations, such as to provide a toilet and to ensure that the whole community can access the building. Without greater reassurances, the Church told the Government, the extra 20% payable would result in projects already scheduled having to be cancelled, and many of those projects were part of initiatives that churches had been encouraged to undertake through the big society.
	The Government did not agree to a U-turn as such. I imagine they felt a bit embarrassed by that point, although that did not stop them performing another U-turn just days later—again, when Parliament was not sitting—on the charity tax. Instead, when they realised how hard churches would be hit, they agreed to give an extra £30 million to the listed places of worship scheme, so that churches could claim the money back in grants.
	It is welcome that churches will no longer be hit with the huge extra cost of VAT, but my understanding of the Exchequer Secretary’s comments today is that churches will be asked to pay the VAT up front, then claim it back. They will have to raise the money to pay for the work they need to carry out, then wait for months to—hopefully—get it back. The hon. Gentleman says that measures have been put in place to make sure that churches do not suffer cash-flow problems, but I am not clear how much reassurance that provides. If he gives more detail when he winds up the debate, I am sure the House will be grateful. For a Government who say that they are waging war against red tape, it seems a bureaucratic
	process to put in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) raised concerns not just about the bureaucracy for HMRC and the Treasury in processing the payments and rebates, but the bureaucracy for the churches, which could well do without it.
	I also understand that, contrary to what the Minister said about the Church of England’s being entirely happy with the proposal, many churches have expressed concern that the uncertainty would put them off accessing the scheme and relying on the VAT rebate. Churches could be deterred from undertaking necessary alterations and repairs. The other concern is that the measure does not help non-religious listed buildings, which still have to pay the 20% tax. Many people will choose not to go ahead with their projects. Among other things, that will hit jobs in the construction industry, and we all know how hard that has been hit by the downturn and the double-dip recession. It is an extra setback for that industry that listed building projects will not go ahead because of the 20% increase in cost.
	We have seen at least partial U-turns on the pasty, the caravan and the church, but the Government have refused to budge on two issues. Sports nutrition drinks are still being subjected to a 20% price hike while sugary milkshakes will still be VAT exempt. The Government want to put VAT on sports drinks that are advertised or marketed
	“as products designed to enhance physical performance”
	or “accelerate recovery after exercise”.
	The Minister sought to provide clarification for the Opposition, but I, for one, am none the wiser about the rationale behind the policy. No rationale has been offered for why a sports drink designed to provide and facilitate exercise and fitness should be targeted for VAT while drinks laden with refined sugars and fats are still exempt. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said earlier, the industry has raised serious concerns about whether milk and milk products will unintentionally be caught up in the ruling. From the Minister’s comments today, I wonder whether that is unintentional at all.
	We all remember the “Make mine milk” ads in which well known sportspeople such as Denise Lewis promoted the benefits of milk for sport. If milk has been marketed as something that enhances physical performance and sporting prowess, will the Government levy VAT on it? My understanding from the Government’s comments today is that they would. There is no indication about how the anomaly would be resolved by the Government or whether they even have an issue. For that reason, we will vote against this shambolic VAT reform.
	The final issue on which we have concerns is the VAT levied on hairdressers’ chairs. The Chancellor wants self-employed hairdressers to pay 20% VAT on hiring a chair in a salon. With the cost of chair hire up, hairdressers will have to choose between passing the cost on to their customers or absorbing it themselves. Industry data show that that will disproportionately hit small businesses and their customers, especially women between 16 and 44 years old. Why do the Government think that a good idea?
	If the measure is just another routine closing of an anomaly, have the Government considered who they are hitting with it and why? I am truly concerned that
	the measure looks as if it was worked out on the back of an envelope, without any consideration of how many jobs it might cost. Our amendment would force the Government to consider carefully the impact on jobs and growth before imposing VAT on any previously exempt products. It is not clear that they have given any thought to the change that I have mentioned.

Steve Rotheram: On haircuts, I wonder whether the increase in VAT in the case of hairdressers will precipitate a return to hairstyles such as the one that I currently sport.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend read my mind as I gazed across the Chamber.
	Giving a tax cut to millionaires and the banks but making it harder for self-employed women and their customers reveals a Government who are, once again, truly out of touch with ordinary people’s lives. New clause 12 seeks to go further on VAT and create a temporary reduction in the rate from 20% to 17.5%. The Liberal Democrats ran for election on a manifesto that warned of the dangers of a VAT rise with their pledge to protect constituents from the “VAT bombshell” threatened by the Conservatives. The Deputy Prime Minister pledged:
	“We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises…Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT.”
	Why were they so against VAT? Perhaps it is because the evidence clearly shows that people on lower incomes are hit proportionately much harder than the rich by VAT because they tend to spend more of their income rather than save and invest it. Government Members will claim that, looking at different measures, more VAT is paid by the rich—the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) fell into that trap—but there is absolutely no debate about the fact that VAT is regressive and that those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on it than those on higher incomes. Even the Prime Minister agrees. In 2001, he said:
	“If you look at the effect...as compared with people’s income then, yes, it’s regressive”.

Jake Berry: Does the hon. Lady concur that those on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income on fuel, and will she therefore welcome the postponement of the 3p increase in fuel duty?

Catherine McKinnell: I not only welcome it but point out that we proposed it, and the Chancellor shortly followed us on the same day. Our proposal to bring about an immediate reduction in VAT to 17.5% would deliver that 3p fuel duty reduction for drivers and put money in their pockets not only in respect of fuel but right across the board. It is a measure that is absolutely required to turn our economy round from the double-dip recession we are in.

Stephen Gilbert: Is not the real VAT bombshell the fact that the hon. Lady does not know how much this policy would cost Her Majesty’s Treasury? In the hour or so for which she has been talking, has she had any inspiration from colleagues?

Catherine McKinnell: As I said, it is the Government’s job to work out the cost of any tax changes or spending commitments, and they have not even been able to provide answers as regards their own fuel duty reduction.

David Gauke: As the hon. Lady says that it is the Government’s job, let me tell her—I do not want to keep her in suspense —that her policy of reducing VAT to 17.5% would cost £12 billion to £13 billion a year. Does she dispute that number, and can she explain how she is going to pay for it?

Catherine McKinnell: If our policy turns the trajectory of the economy around from one of recession to one of growth, then clearly it will pay for itself and bring down the benefits bill, which is currently going up.

John Mann: I would like clarity on what the Opposition’s policy is. [ Interruption. ] I can hardly hear myself think. Is it our policy that VAT will be permanently reduced to 17.5% or that the reduction will last for 12 months and then it will go back up to 20%?

Catherine McKinnell: We are suggesting—we hope that the Government will jump on our way of thinking, as they did with the delay in the rise in fuel duty—an immediate reduction to 17.5% until we get the economy back into growth.

Dan Byles: Temporary, but open-ended.

Catherine McKinnell: It all depends on how long the Government take to get the economy back into growth. The reaction of Government Members seems strange, when they are driving the economy into recession rather than into growth.

Andrew Percy: The hon. Lady will be aware that the temporary reduction under the last Government had a significant cost impact on a number of businesses. If the economy suddenly went into growth in the quarter following the reduction, would she expect businesses to take the burden of the costs of implementing the reduction and then unimplementing it in two successive quarters?

Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself, given that we are in a double-dip recession, that growth has stalled, that all the predictions of the Office for Budget Responsibility are being revised down day on day, and that borrowing is going up. Everybody agrees that we need demand in the economy. The way of generating demand in the economy is to put money back into people’s pockets. I remind hon. Members that before the increase in VAT, the economy was on a trajectory of growth. That was before this Government took over and brought in their disastrous austerity policies.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s figures assume that when VAT rises or falls, it has no impact on people’s expenditure? The thrust of what we have been saying, not just in response to the Budget, but for several months, is that the rise in VAT
	has dampened demand. The tax-take in May, for example, was down by 7%. Far from a static amount of money being drawn in, a VAT reduction would increase demand and, ultimately, increase the tax-take.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for her characteristically rational contribution. I would add that the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report estimated that the Government’s tax and benefit reforms will make a couple with children £511 worse off in this financial year and £1,250 a year worse off by 2015. It does not take an economic genius to work out what that does to demand in the economy.
	The Prime Minister admits that a 2.5% increase in VAT hits the poorest hardest, so what happened to, “We’re all in this together”? I would like to hear an answer on that. As well as hitting poor people the hardest, higher VAT is hitting the economy at a time when we can least afford it. As we have discussed, the Chancellor unveiled a fuel duty cut last week, using mystery funding sources. Dropping VAT could have taken 3p a litre off petrol immediately. Across the board, a temporary cut in VAT would stimulate growth and get the economy moving again. Putting money back into people’s pockets is the only way to support businesses and create jobs—the very things that the Chancellor left out of his mangled Budget. That is why a temporary return to 17.5% is part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth.

John Mann: Is not another way to stimulate the economy to spend the money on employing the police officers who have been sacked and on reversing the ambulance cuts, the fire service cuts, the Army cuts and other cuts? We could use the £50 billion that a VAT cut would equate to over a Parliament to employ public servants, rather than to cut taxes.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Since June 2011 we have lost more than 100,000 public sector jobs, which means that there have been redundancies at a rate of one a minute since the Government took office. Yet the private sector, which the Prime Minister anticipated would flood in to create jobs, has simply not delivered. It has created only half that number of jobs, leaving the other half of those people on the dole and claiming benefits. That is pushing Government borrowing up, not down.
	The measures that we suggest would boost the economy and people’s spending power and ensure that we are not saddled with taxes that no one can afford. We want to see the economy moving into growth again.

Sarah Newton: When I came into the Chamber to listen to the opening part of this debate, I did not anticipate speaking. However, I am very pleased to have caught your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I felt utterly compelled to join in, notwithstanding my current incapacity. It has been an illuminating debate.
	I listened to the shadow Minister’s speech and the interventions of her colleagues, and I find it staggering that they are not going to listen to the submissions of my constituents on the pasty tax, caravans or fundraising for places of worship, on which many people work so hard. Oh no—their opinions do not count for anything to the Opposition. They are not going to listen to all the
	representations that have led to the Government’s sensible proposals. The listening exercise to improve and amend the Budget has led to proposals that respond directly to all the concerns expressed by my constituents, and I dare say by the constituents of a great number of colleagues.

Julie Hilling: I am really very confused. My constituents have been saying exactly the same thing, which is why Labour Members have been arguing against this dreadful Budget in the Chamber, the Public Bill Committee and wherever we can. We have said that the Government should not put VAT on pasties, caravans, hairdressers’ chairs and so on. I agree with the hon. Lady about that. Thank heavens, the Government listened to us a bit in the end, but sadly not enough.

Sarah Newton: It is surprising to me that, as far as we are aware from the comments of the shadow Minister, the Opposition will be voting against the very improvements that the hon. Lady says they have been working so hard to achieve. I do not doubt her good intentions or that she has been working very hard to represent her constituents, but if she was truly doing so, she would walk through the Lobby with the Government this evening, because they have listened thoroughly.
	Let us take the pasty tax, for example. It will not surprise Members that I am keen to talk about pasties, because not only am I a big fan and regular consumer of them, but I represent Cornwall, where they are an incredibly important industry. When I listened to the Budget some months ago, it was clear to me that the Government were doing exactly the right thing. They had seen some dreadful anomalies in VAT on food that had led to huge unfairness. Independent owners of fish and chip shops in my constituency had to pay VAT, but other outlets selling hot takeaway foods did not. The Government’s attempt to sort out VAT struck me as perfectly reasonable.
	We all know that what is really holding back growth in our economy is that for too long, small businesses have been massively overburdened by a dreadfully confused and muddled-up tax code. Under the last Government, the tax code multiplied and multiplied. We would probably have to use a wheelbarrow to carry all its volumes into the Chamber. The current Government are making a very reasonable effort to simplify some of the taxes that are such a burden on businesses in my constituency. They have listened carefully to the representations that have been made and are now going to create a level playing field for all people producing and selling takeaway food. That will benefit independent bakers in small businesses throughout Cornwall who bake pasties.

Graham Stuart: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government inherited the largest overspend and deficit in the developed world, so it was right for them to probe every possible area of tax revenue. It was also right for them to listen to people when representations were made and to respect parliamentary democracy. Does she agree that if the Labour party had listened to Back Benchers when it was in power, we would not have got into the mess that we are in and we would not have the vast deficit that the Government are having so valiantly to fight to reduce?

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes his point as passionately and persuasively as always, and he is absolutely right.
	To return to pasties—one of my favourite subjects—when I listened to the Budget, it was clear to me that there was a problem with the proposals as they stood. Some of the architects of those proposals clearly did not understand how pasties are baked in Cornwall. Within hours I spoke to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who clearly understood the problem that I described to him. He said the Government realised that there could be some complications and unforeseen consequences, hence the reason for their consultation. Colleagues from around the country responded positively to that consultation, and their concerns have now been met.
	I am staggered by what the Opposition wish to inflict on our country by not supporting the Government tonight. In the nightmarish scenario that they won the Division, we would return to the situation in which the Treasury wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money every year having to fight litigation cases against multi-million-pound companies that are trying to avoid paying VAT. The extremely complicated tax code that was developed under Labour over its 13 years was a lawyers charter. I have nothing against lawyers—I am married to a very good lawyer—but that ever-increasing and complicated tax code means that, not unreasonably, companies try to avoid paying tax. That causes Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be tied up in court, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers fees that it could be spending in a far better way.
	It beggars belief, but what the Labour party is saying tonight is, “We are on the side of companies trying to avoid tax. We are on the side of lawyers who are constantly taking HMRC to court.” What a dreadful waste of taxpayers’ money. The Government are trying to have a fair and simple tax system that everybody in the country can understand, so that we are not caught out by those who avoid taxation.

Sheila Gilmore: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has noticed the size of the Bill. It is apparently one of the biggest Finance Bills ever, which suggests that the tax code is being added to all the time. Would it not have been easier for the Government never to have made their VAT proposal in the first place?

Sarah Newton: No. As I have said—very clearly, I hope—the Government’s change will bring about a lot of clarity and be beneficial. For example, new schedule 1 clarifies what constitutes takeaway food and hot food. I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary made that we can never be 100% certain that companies will not litigate to try to wriggle their way out of paying their taxes, but the added clarity will be welcome to pasty makers. They will understand the situation that applies to pasties that are made and consumed in the way that they are in Cornwall.
	For the benefit of Opposition Members who do not seem to understand what master bakers do in pasty shops in Cornwall, I will explain that each day they get up very early to make high-quality bread, cakes and buns as well as pasties. They cook them on their premises so that they are beautiful and freshly made. Throughout the course of the day, anybody can buy freshly made bread, cakes, buns, scones or pasties. Thanks to the clarification in the new schedule, we can continue doing that in the certain knowledge that we will not pay VAT.
	Labour Members, however, who, feeling peckish on their way home tonight, decide to pop into the West Cornwall Pasty store, perhaps at the station, will, as in every other takeaway food outlet at the station, quite rightly pay VAT, because those pasties are deliberately kept warm all day long alongside other takeaway food. It is only right and proper, therefore, that they pay VAT.
	We did not have that clarity before. There were all sorts of loopholes that companies sought to exploit at huge cost to the Exchequer and, ultimately, to us taxpayers, because we pay the bills. I find it astonishing, therefore, that the Labour party is on the side of wealthy companies, with their deep pockets, and the lobby in favour of tax avoidance. I find that absolutely extraordinary.

Jake Berry: Of course, it was not just a pasty tax; it would also have affected the fantastic Cissy Greens pie shop in Haslingden. We are dancing from the River Ogden to the River Irwell in celebration of the fact that we can enjoy our Cissy Greens pies without VAT.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This affects master bakers, whether of pork pies, sausage rolls, steak pies or chicken pies, the length and breadth of the country. Those self-employed, highly skilled master craftsmen can carry on producing their much-loved regional foods, which we enjoy all over the country and make our country so distinct, as we celebrate our rich and varied food heritage. I hope that that addresses any misapprehensions among Labour Members about the benefits of the pasty tax.
	Much has been made of the Government’s U-turns. I welcome having a Government who, when they launch a consultation, as they did after the Budget, actually listen to representations on a range of measures, and I am pleased that the Chancellor is driving our economy in the right direction. We have to reduce our deficit and get our expenditure under control. The hard-working families and small businesses in my constituency understand that, and frankly will feel let down by this retread idea of a 2.5% reduction in VAT—the only proposal we hear from Opposition Members. But, of course, we do not know whether that will be their proposal tomorrow, next week or next month, because the shadow Minister could only say that it was the proposal today. If that is their only proposal and if it is only for today, how can families in my constituency have any confidence that they would drive the economy in a better direction? I am confident that the Chancellor is on the right road, and I am certain that focusing on the Budget, making sensible changes along the way, is the right way to go.

John Mann: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is good news that the Chancellor listened to me on pasties, on caravans—after I invited him on holiday with the Prime Minister and me in a caravan—and on petrol? Does she also agree that it would be even better news if he also listened to me on churches and VAT on listed buildings?

Sarah Newton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that intervention, because I was going to talk about that issue. First, however, I would like to make a
	little more progress on the analogy I was drawing to the House’s attention. We all get behind the wheel of a car from time to time—sadly, at the moment, I cannot, but I hope to be back there before too long—and when on a journey we are often certain of our destination, but sometimes we are not as good navigators as we would like and have to put on our sat-nav to help us, and sometimes we get an instruction from that irritating person on the sat-nav saying, “As soon as the road ahead is safe and permits, please do a U-turn.” At that point, do we throw up our hands in horror and say, “Oh, it’s just appalling to have to make a U-turn”, or do we think, sensibly, that to reach our destination in a safe and timely way it is appropriate to make the occasional U-turn? I have no problem with the Government making U-turns if it gets us to our destination in a timely and safe way.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the changes to listed buildings. Having the beautiful Truro cathedral in my constituency, I was concerned about the proposals and immediately consulted the diocese and a wide range of churches in my constituency about their implications. I brought all that information to the Chancellor’s attention, as, I am sure, did Members across the House, and I was satisfied with his response. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), is to be congratulated on how he co-ordinated all our efforts and on the work he has done with the Church Commissioners and the Treasury. Their solution is both practical and actionable, and has met with the perfect satisfaction of churches in my constituency.
	I know that many Members wish to join in the debate, so I shall conclude. It is immensely important that we have a Government who listen, who consult on proposals and who then act on them. Whether on fuel duty, pasty taxes, caravan taxes or fuel taxes, my constituents are immensely pleased and relieved that the Government have listened and helped hard-working people and small businesses during these difficult times.

Frank Field: I want to speak to new clause 3, although it might first be appropriate to pick up on one theme from the speech by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She said she was pleased that the Chancellor was creating a level playing field. Well, if there is any area of the country where it would be difficult to create level playing fields, it would be in Truro. But anyway, I am pleased that she is satisfied.
	I wish to make a plea for a level playing field for young people in my constituency and other constituencies who go to sixth-form colleges, and I wish to compare their tax position with that of young people undertaking sixth-form studies in school. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), we discussed how poorer young people in sixth-form colleges or similar establishments were discriminated against in respect of free school dinners compared with young people in school. Here is yet another example of discrimination against young people depending on the institution they attend.
	I plead again with the Government, in respect of VAT, to treat sixth-form colleges as we treat schools with sixth forms. In Birkenhead, most pupils have no option but to attend sixth-form college if they want to
	undertake post-16 studies because the sixth forms of most of the schools were pooled together in that one enterprise. The VAT on services that the college purchases, but which schools do not pay, adds £300,000 to the college budget—a reduction of 4% in that budget.
	My plea to the Chancellor will be brief and simple;I will not go up and down the country lanes, visiting various constituents, bakers and so on. He hoped to create a level playing field for taxation for sixth-form colleges and sixth forms in schools by the end of the Parliament. That was a noble objective, but the 2015 election, as it draws ever nearer, will certainly concentrate Government Members’ minds not only on small U-turns but perhaps on more major ones.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies undertook an analysis of the Government’s public expenditure changes which showed that the part of the education system that will be most handicapped and suffer the largest cuts by 2015 will be colleges of further education. Indeed, they will experience a 20% real-terms cut in their budgets by 2015. I know that it would not be in order to ask the Minister to respond to that, but given that the Government’s policies are making the playing field even more unequal for sixth-form colleges, compared with the treatment of sixth forms in schools, let me make a plea for him to concede that point and exempt sixth-form colleges, whose students are of an age group that if they were not at college, they would be in school.

Bob Stewart: I do not understand why this has ever occurred. How come a sixth-form college is not treated exactly the same as a sixth form in a normal school? They may be in different areas, but they are essentially the same kids. I do not understand it, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman—my friend, because I have known him a very long time—can tell me the answer.

Frank Field: I am grateful for the intervention. Unfortunately I cannot give an answer, but I will redirect the question to the Minister. This time, I hope that he will give us an answer and—I hope even more—say that the Government intend to take action.

Andrew Percy: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who made an interesting contribution, on an issue that I was not planning to speak about, but which I hope will be pursued if his new clause is not accepted this evening.
	This has been an interesting debate. I am only sorry that the Minister’s attempt to take us through every VAT change since 1973 was cut somewhat short. We got to about 1983, which was probably as far as most of us needed to get, but it was interesting none the less. The debate has also been interesting because of the number of food products that have been mentioned. At one point, when we were talking about rotisserie chickens, pasties and sausage rolls, I thought it was lunchtime at the Percy house, but apparently not. I am proud to say that I eat pasties: I ate my last one from Fuller’s bakery on the precinct in Goole just the other day. I cannot say that I partake of sports drinks, so I will not take much of an interest in that part of the debate, but I am certainly pleased that the Government have seen sense on pasties. I am not sure that I necessarily share the full analysis offered by my hon. Friend the Member for
	Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the seamless transition of policy. I do not think it has necessarily been the Government’s finest hour, but at least at the end of the process we have a system with which we can all live.
	I want to make a few brief comments about the caravan tax. It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who assisted with—[ Interruption ]—sorry, who led the campaign. I chide him with an in-joke. He led the campaign very ably and got us all together. He deserves credit for that, and I am pleased to see him here for this debate. The impact that the measure would have had is well documented from the various debates we have had. The Minister knows from the meetings we had with him that we were very concerned, particularly in our part of the world, where the vast majority of the relevant manufacturing is and where a lot of the supply chain is based, including, in my constituency in Brigg, a number of companies that were affected. I also have some of the parks that would have been affected in my constituency. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who would have similarly been greatly affected, from the point of view of the park owners, had the measure gone forward. It is therefore incredibly important that we have reached the position we have.
	Some genuine points have been made about the consultation. One needs only to do a Google search to find headline after headline, in both local and national papers, about the state in which the industry has found itself in recent years. Indeed, it had to go to the previous Government looking for support, although I am not sure that a great deal was forthcoming. We are talking about an industry that has struggled considerably over the past few years, so quite who came up with the idea of slapping on 20% VAT, thereby affecting sales by up to 30%, I do not know, and I hope that some lessons will be learned. I prefer to see what the Government have done not as a U-turn, however. There was a US politician who used to describe a U-turn as a recalibration of policy, so I welcome this recalibration of policy. It is a shame that the previous Government did not do that on more occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness mentioned.
	There are two issues that I want to go into in detail. First, the question of whether the previous position was an anomaly is still up for debate. I do not think we necessarily want to cede the principle that the previous regime of not subjecting holiday statics to VAT was indeed an anomaly. There is an argument to be had about that. The second thing I want to pursue is the assurances we have heard, which I am pleased the Minister gave at the Dispatch Box, in so far as he is able when it comes to future tax policy. We have been assured that it is unlikely that the Government will seek to look at the issue again. I am sure that we would all welcome that and that the Minister will welcome not having colleagues from all parts of the country banging on his door, as we did.

Graham Stuart: rose —

Andrew Percy: I give way to my hon. Friend, who led the campaign.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Now that a 5% VAT rate has been introduced, does he agree that any Government, whether the coalition or a future Labour Government, would be ill-advised to return to this issue with any form of increase? The level of 5% can be accepted. People do not pay council tax on these caravans. We are talking about a compromise, but one that can last, that the industry can live with and that the political establishment should live with. Indeed, no Government should ever think of returning to the issue at any time while even someone as young as my hon. Friend is in this House.

Andrew Percy: I am being abolished at the next election anyway, so there are only three years in which the Government might have to worry about me. However, they would frankly be stupid—if that is not unparliamentary language—to look at the issue again. I think any Government will take note of the campaign.
	The final assurance I seek from the Minister is that we will continue to be conscious that there will still be a potential impact, as was mentioned in interventions by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who also fought valiantly. I hope that the Treasury will continue to monitor that.
	In the final minute, I want quickly to say something about the Opposition’s VAT cut for millionaires, which I think is what they are proposing. Whereas we on this side of the House have decided to target tax changes at those struggling the most—for example, by raising the personal allowance and taking some of the poorest out of tax altogether—the Opposition policy is to issue a massive VAT cut for high earners and millionaires, and just to pepper money around. The Opposition are not quite sure how much—they have not told us, although we think the figure might be £12 billion—and they do not know for how long the measure would be in place. What a policy! The interesting thing we have learnt is that we now know that the Opposition’s official policy is to support, ultimately, VAT at 20%, because they have said that the measure would be temporary, meaning that they have therefore definitely agreed the 20% rate.

Julie Hilling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: No, I am not going to give way, because other people want to speak.
	The shadow Minister talked a lot about VAT consultation and the Government’s failure, she said, to consult on the changes. I just wonder whether she has consulted very widely on her proposal to reduce the rate temporarily to 17.5%, because I suspect not.

Diana Johnson: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who, with characteristic humility, accepted that bringing forward these VAT proposals was not the Government’s finest hour, unlike the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who unfortunately is no longer in her place. She has a rose-tinted view of the shambles of this Budget and the proposals that have been put forward, which caused consternation, upset and distress to many individuals and businesses around the country. However, she now seems to think that we should be celebrating the fact that the Government have had to cobble together this compromise.
	I shall be supporting new clause 10, which was tabled by those on our Front Bench, and I want to speak against the Government’s new schedule 1. Our opposition to new schedule 1 underlines Labour’s commitment to having low taxes, because it would implement a tax increase, including the 5% VAT on caravans, which I want to address.

Dan Byles: I am interested to hear about that commitment, because I had understood that it was Labour policy to do more of the heavy lifting on deficit reduction through raising taxes than through cutting public spending. Is her party now the party of low taxes?

Diana Johnson: This section of the debate is about VAT. When we are in a double-dip recession, the imposition of VAT on items such as caravans is not going to help us to grow out of that economic position. That is what I will concentrate on.
	The proposal for 20% VAT to be levied on static caravans came out of the blue in the Budget. There had been no consultation with the industry, and no warning that the Government were planning that measure. The impact assessment published alongside the Budget stated that the 20% VAT would result in a 30% reduction in the market for static caravans. The Government’s U-turn involved a 75% reduction in the amount of VAT involved, and 5% will now be levied from April 2103, as opposed to 20% from October 2012.
	I can go some way towards welcoming the fact that the Government have listened and put forward a response to the widespread view that the imposition of 20% VAT would have been a disaster. There was cross-party work on the issue, with a number of debates, early-day motions and petitions. I will give the Minister his due; he did take the time to listen to what people had to say, especially those from my part of the world. However, serious concerns remain about the effect that the 5% VAT will have, and I want to run through them tonight.
	I want to talk first about jobs and demand, which are at the heart of the issue. As I said, the Treasury’s own figures showed that the imposition of 20% VAT would have resulted in a 30% reduction in demand for static caravans. It worries me that the Treasury seems incapable of using figures appropriately. When I looked at the impact assessment, I realised that it had got the figures for businesses and manufacturers in the caravan industry wrong. It worries me that it cannot even get such basic information correct when it sets out to consult on a proposal. I want to see much better research into the impact of the 5% VAT on caravan manufacturers.
	I have not been reassured by what the Minister has told me today, even though I have pressed him to tell me what will happen to manufacturers in the caravan industry. I did not feel that he really had a grasp of what the numbers might be. It worries me that there has been no proper assessment of this policy. Does he think that levying 5% VAT will put at risk roughly a quarter of the demand that the 20% VAT would have put at risk? Does he also think that the number of job losses in the caravan manufacturing industry will be reduced from the 6,000 mentioned in KPMG’s report to about 1,500 as a result of the change in VAT? Will he also comment on the knock-on effects for the wider UK tourism and domestic holiday industry?
	I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the HMRC document, “VAT: Taxing Holiday Caravans”, which was published at the end of last week. On the economic impact of the 5%, it states:
	“This measure is likely to lead to an increase in the price of static and larger touring caravans which could lead to a fall in demand.”
	I take the view that the Treasury civil servants are among the brightest and best that the civil service has to offer, and it seems odd that they have been able to come up with nothing more definitive than that the measure “could” lead to a fall in demand. The document goes on to state:
	“Although the overall impact on the macro economy is expected to be negligible, the measure will impact local manufacturing in Yorkshire and the Humber where the bulk of static holiday caravans are manufactured.”
	Most people in Hull and East Yorkshire would agree with that, but surely the Treasury can come up with something better. The section of the document entitled “Impact on businesses including civil society organisations” states:
	“The vast majority of static holiday caravans are manufactured in Yorkshire and the Humber and a small number of manufacturers account for the vast majority of all UK sales. Although some manufacturers produce other types of caravans, static caravans are the main source of income for most of these manufacturers.”
	Again, it worries me that the document uses such general terms. Where is the meat in all this? Where are the figures? Where does it tell us what the actual economic impact of the policy will be?
	Let us bear in mind that we are in a double-dip recession and we are all desperate to get growth back into the economy. I mentioned in an intervention that 46.3 people in my constituency chase every job vacancy going, so any loss of jobs in the caravan manufacturing industry is a disaster for my constituents. I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned that the caravan industry suffered very badly in 2008-09, and it is only just getting back on its feet. If the Treasury thinks that the imposition of 5% VAT will be fine for an industry that is struggling in a double-dip recession when people are not spending, it really needs to look again at its figures and ensure that they all add up.
	The Minister said that the goods within a caravan were already taxed, in that VAT had already been levied on such items. My understanding is that the figure involved is about 5%. Will he tell us whether the 5% proposed in the Bill will be an additional 5%, making a total of about 10% VAT payable? I am confused by that, and the Minister has not made it clear.
	One of the strongest arguments against the initial proposal for 20% VAT was that it would raise very little revenue for the Treasury. When taking that into account, we also need to consider the welfare costs that would be incurred from people in the industry losing their jobs. Has the Minister looked at the figures involved? Does he think that the sums add up?
	HMRC now estimates that the 5% VAT will first raise revenue in 2013-14, when it will bring in £5 million a year, rising to £10 million a year from 2013-14. That is a relatively small amount of money, given the Government’s overall spending, especially in the light of the millions that they have found in the Budget for tax cuts for
	millionaires. Let us put this into perspective: £10 million is perhaps a third or half of what Mr Diamond’s severance payment might be.
	This measure will have an impact from next year onwards, while raising £5 million to £10 million. When we take into account the fall in demand in the industry and the resulting job losses, I do not think that the Treasury will end up in credit. Introducing the measure could result in more money being spent, through welfare benefits. Will the Minister set out for me the sums that he is using to ensure that the measure will bring a net benefit to the Treasury? In my view, this is an ill thought-through policy, and these are crazy economics.
	The Minister referred to the manufacturing standard, BS 3632. As I said in my intervention, using a manufacturing standard to dictate tax policy is silly.

Graham Stuart: I want to return to the hon. Lady’s point about the overall costs. A significant percentage of the cost of a new caravan is found in the chattels inside, which already have VAT on them. So the additional overall cost will not be higher than 5%; it will be more like 3% or 4% on the overall average retail cost of a caravan. The manufacturers are telling me that they think that that can broadly be absorbed within their business model. It will have some negative impact, but a fairly minimal one. We are certainly not talking about 10% costs, but about rather less than 5%.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did on this matter. However, I would really like to hear from the Minister what the VAT level is going to be, because my understanding is that it is 5% plus the additional VAT already levied. The hon. Gentleman says that it is 3% or 4% and not 5%, but is that 3% or 4% on top of the 5%, which would mean it was 8% or 9%, not 5%?

Graham Stuart: rose —

Diana Johnson: I am happy to give way again.

Graham Stuart: Basically, VAT has already been paid on those chattels, so if 25% of the cost of the caravan were for the chattels, that already includes VAT, so we are looking at 5% on 75% of the overall cost of the caravan. That is why it is significantly less than 5% as an addition to the actual cost when someone goes to a park to try to buy a caravan. The additional costs as a result of this change will be significantly less than 5%—I say that clearly and categorically.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again, but I would still like to hear from the Minister exactly what the figure will be. My understanding—I was at the same meeting with the caravan manufacturers in Beverley as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—was that a figure was levied across the whole price of the caravan, including the chattels in the caravan at around 3% or 4% of the overall cost. Will the Minister clarify that? Are there two figures that we need to be aware of, or is it just 5% overall of the total amount of the purchase? I have to tell the Government that if this
	were intended to make things clearer, the truth is that it is making things even more complicated and less transparent.
	Let me return to the BS 3632 specification. I was saying that I thought that that was not a sensible way to make tax policy. I know that the distinction between static caravans and those used for residential purposes 365 days of the year is based on the reference to BS 3632. If we look at the responses to HMRC’s consultation, we see that while many respondents felt it would be relatively straightforward to upgrade static caravans to meet the BS 3632 standard so that they could benefit from zero-rated standing, many others said that the costs of doing so would be prohibitive. There is a confusion there, which is why I would like the Minister to be very clear about it.
	With certified British standards changing all the time because manufacturing gets better and better, how often does the Minister think he would need to return to this tax provision to update it? I doubt whether it will be set in stone for years to come; it will have to be looked at and changed in the future. I heard the Minister’s reassurance that we would not see changes to the standard in the future, but he is opening the door to potential changes. The system that the Minister has devised, based on the British standard and keeping the distinction between static, residential and touring caravans, does not make things clearer and more transparent; rather, I think it extends the anomalies in the tax system.
	An even bigger issue for me is the lack of clear evidence of what the change to VAT policy will do for my constituents and for jobs in my city. That is what really concerns and worries me. I know that the Minister has listened carefully to my pleas about employment and jobs. I hope he will think again and will instruct his officials to do a proper piece of work, so that when MPs scrutinise Government policy, they will have accurate figures to look at in order to assess whether the Government’s policies will result in what they say they are trying to achieve. In this case, I do not think the Government will see additional revenue in the Exchequer. If they bring forward this ill thought-through proposal, which will disproportionately affect my constituents, there will be a loss to the Government.

Stephen Gilbert: I feel as if I have fallen into a parallel universe in this debate. It is interesting, is it not, that although Labour crashed the economy so totally, Labour Members today want to provide a £12 billion giveaway by reducing VAT—something that would presumably have to be paid for by further cuts in the public services that they say they want to protect, or indeed by an increase in borrowing. It seems inconceivable to me that this measure is on the amendment paper in the name of Labour Members. I recall that when I was growing up there was television programme called “Jamie and the Magic Torch”. I used to enjoy it considerably, but it seems that we have a show on the other side of the Chamber tonight called “Ed and the Magic Money Tree”, with the Opposition unable to be clear or consistent about their VAT policy.
	Another bizarre aspect of the debate is that when the Government are forced into what my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) refers
	to as a “recalibration” on a number of issues, which my constituents certainly welcome, the Opposition oppose the measures that the Government are taking to address the problems that they initially highlighted. It strikes me as utterly bizarre that, a few months ago, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)and her hon. Friends raised concerns, as did I and other hon. Members, about the pasty tax, the caravan tax, the problems affecting static caravans and other issues, yet tonight the same hon. Lady and her colleagues are going to vote against the U-turn that the Government have made. It may well be the case that the Government have made a U-turn, but it is clear from the positioning going on tonight that Labour has taken a wrong turn.
	Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticise a Government for being cavalier when they do not listen, and then criticise them as chaotic when they do listen. As they well know, the reality is that on all these issues, particularly on tackling anomalies in the VAT system, the problems were set out in the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor rightly announced. That consultation was widely subscribed to by many interested parties, and the Government took the responses to it into account and changed their view on the back of the evidence they received. I for one recognise that none of us has a monopoly of wisdom. It is surely in the finest traditions of good government that the people likely to be affected by these rules are listened to and that a Government take advice if a deleterious effect is pointed out.
	Labour Members talk about the need to consult, but when they abolished the 10p tax rate, plunging millions of the lowest paid into further tax, I do not think they consulted on that measure. That is why, as I say, the last few moments of the debate have been somewhat eye-opening, highlighting the sheer opportunism of the Opposition in opposing a U-turn. They call for consultation, then, in the very debate that shows that the Government are listening, they choose to ignore it. Frankly, as I said at the outset, that is bizarre.
	My constituents would want me to welcome new schedule 1 and Government amendment 17. Those provisions will protect jobs in Cornwall, protect the Cornish high street and high streets across the country, protect the secondary spend in the wider economy and will ensure that Cornwall, which is already a disadvantaged part of the our United Kingdom, is not further disadvantaged by proposals that the Government have, thankfully, amended.
	I would also like to thank the Minister. In all the discussions between him, me and my hon. Friends, he has always been entirely professional, courteous and constructive in his engagement. I would like to thank others, too. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North knows, Greggs is based in her constituency. Its effort to mobilise more than 500,000 signatures across the country for a petition that my hon. Friends in Cornwall and me were able to deliver to Downing street showed the level of grass-roots concern about proposals that could have been very damaging.
	I thank the National Association of Master Bakers; that is not a sentence that one wants to rush through! Its engagement with this issue has been constructive and professional, and it has represented the views of its industry to the Government very effectively. For what
	will probably be the only time in my life, I also thank and pay tribute to
	The Sun
	, which ensured that the issue touched the popular zeitgeist and was able, ultimately, to deliver change. More locally, the
	Western Morning News
	, the voice of the south-west, played a useful role in keeping the issue in the public eye.
	I can tell the Minister that people in Cornwall are relieved that this coalition Government took soundings, listened and, at the end of the day, delivered a result that will protect an iconic and important Cornish industry. It is estimated that the measure will safeguard about 13,000 jobs in Cornwall, put hundreds of millions of pounds into the local economy, and guarantee the production of the 180 million Cornish pasties that are made in the county every year.

Bob Stewart: Everyone has been saying how great it is that VAT will no longer be charged on pasties, but I should point out those who own fish and chip shops are at a slight disadvantage by comparison. I just want to balance the equation a bit, and that is one of the things that we were trying to put right.

Stephen Gilbert: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will be pleased to know that new schedule 1 will deliver the level playing field to which he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have referred, and on the subject of which I have received representations from fish and chip shops in my constituency.
	If a product in a fish and chip shop is being kept artificially warm it is standard-rated, and new schedule 1 will ensure that the same applies in a pasty or pie shop. The simplicity for which the Government aimed has been delivered, as has the level playing field for suppliers of hot food. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to the fish and chip shop proprietors in his constituency with some enthusiasm the message that, as a result of the constructive process of consultation and engagement undertaken by the Government, the special status of baked goods which are hot only as a product of their baking process has been recognised. The fact that a freshly baked hot pasty which is simply cooling down, will remain VAT-free should be welcomed by one and all.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) seemed to think that he was living in a parallel universe, and, indeed, most of us Opposition Members thought that we were living in one as well. The process that has taken place is rather like the process that takes place when someone says “I want £10 from you”, and then, after a great deal of argument, says “I will make it just £2, so you should be happy”, and we find ourselves saying “Thank you so much for listening.”
	Yes, it was good that the Government listened. I do not think that any Opposition Member has said otherwise, although we might have preferred them to listen from the outset. They had an opportunity to do so on Second Reading. One or two Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers voted against the Government even then in order to make their views known, but many others who had heard the Government say that the measures were necessary voted for them. Yes, it is good that the Government have listened, but it might have been better had they never embarked on this road. We must ask
	whether it was sensible for the Treasury—which, one assumes, is in charge of our economy to some extent—to spend the last four months dealing with matters which it had, after all, generated in the first place.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government listened only partially, especially when it came to the imposition of VAT on listed buildings? Churches will still have to undergo a bureaucratic process in order to claim it back, and other listed buildings will still be subject to VAT for repairs. That could really affect the country’s heritage.

Sheila Gilmore: I shall say something about precisely that issue later.
	The time and effort of officials and politicians was largely wasted by a process that, in some but not all instances, led us back to where we started at a time when the economy was tanking. Could not much of that energy have been expended on something far more worth while? It was said on Second Reading that this was not a Budget for jobs and growth but a Budget that tinkered at the edges of various issues, and the Government have themselves conceded that all that tinkering was probably a bad idea.

Diana Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the VAT measures in the Budget had a major effect on business confidence in certain industries? For instance, when the caravan industry was threatened with the imposition of a 20% rate, some companies issued their work forces with 90-day potential redundancy notices.

Sheila Gilmore: Of course the stress and anxiety affected confidence and well-being. Indeed, it may have led to a further plunge in demand as people anticipated the impending redundancy which, thankfully, did not come about in many cases. That is an important consideration at a time when the economy is struggling so much.
	I think that a great deal of time was wasted because the Government included measures in the Budget rather than dealing with the position earlier. If they believed that there were anomalies in the VAT system, why did they not consult? As I have suggested before, they could have said “We are minded to look at these things” at the time of the autumn statement, rather than at a time when they were putting together a Budget that, apparently, they wanted to balance. We heard a lot about that at the time.
	Why did the Government not say “We want to look at these anomalies and review them in a general context”? One of our amendments proposes that that should happen in future. If there is to be consultation, it should be proper consultation. Saying, as the Chancellor did in March, “This is what we have to do and this is why we have to do it, but we will have a bit of consultation afterwards” is putting the cart before the horse. I hope that that lesson will be learned for the future.

Julie Hilling: One theory being put about is that the Chancellor was hijacked by civil servants whose pet projects had been turned down by the Labour Government, who had said “Don’t be silly”, and the Treasury was suckered into proposing a load of nonsensical changes.

Sheila Gilmore: That may indeed may be the case. I recall that in 2007 a new council took charge in Edinburgh—it was a Liberal Democrat-SNP coalition—and it announced that it was planning to close some 22 schools. There was a very interesting cartoon in the local paper. It showed officials coming out of a meeting with the new administration and turning to each other and saying, “We never expected them to accept all that. That was a starter for 10, and we thought we’d get beaten back.” The officials had put forward this proposal and the new and inexperienced administration had said, “Yeah, we’ll go for that.” It did them some reputational damage. They proposed closing 22 schools, but then had to roll back very substantially because of the public outcry. The officials had expected to be told, “Actually, that’s not what we want to do. That’s not sensible. Let’s see the proper workings before we ever go public on this.” Perhaps the suggestion that this Budget measure was a consequence of our having a very inexperienced Government and Chancellor was right, therefore.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend not agree that that view is much too kind to the Chancellor and the Government parties, as they clearly dreamt up these mad ideas themselves?

Sheila Gilmore: I will resist the temptation to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation to agree with that view, because we have to be tolerant, to a degree, of inexperience. There is currently a strong cult of youth and inexperience in our politics, but that might change, and it might at some point in the future be acknowledged that there is merit in looking to those who have had experience of life and living before entering politics, rather than to those who become as exalted as the Chancellor of the Exchequer before they have lived and experienced a great deal of ordinary life.
	I shall spare Members from having to listen to me list all the listed buildings in my constituency that are not churches. Those who want to know what those buildings are can read the relevant Committee report in Hansard. There is an important point, however. It has been assumed that because the Government made a concession—albeit not a full one, perhaps—to churches, the problem has been solved. There are other listed buildings that are not churches, however, which will now face the 20% rate with no financial assistance or concession made to them. These buildings are equally important. Churches are extremely important as historical monuments, even if some of them are no longer used as churches. In Edinburgh, there are examples of churches that have been converted to other uses, but there are other buildings that are at risk, too, and imaginative alterations might be made to some of them in order to put them into community use. This extra cost will put some such community projects at risk, however, and will put some buildings at risk, too. If those buildings cannot be put into community use, it is likely that they will deteriorate and end up having to be demolished on safety grounds.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly irresponsible to bring in the increase on repairs on listed buildings without conducting a proper impact assessment, and that the Government should review this policy?

Sheila Gilmore: I agree. The Government have pointed out that VAT falls on repairs but it did not previously fall on alterations, and they say we should equalise the situation. That misses the point. Alterations often enable buildings to have a different use from their previous one. They are made to be able to function again for either business, residential or community-use purposes. Such alterations are generally bigger projects than simply repairing the roof and ensuring that the rain does not come in. The costs involved can be great, and this 20% addition to the cost will therefore be very considerable and will put many such projects at risk. Many people have made that point, and do not feel the Government concession in respect of churches goes nearly far enough. We must bear that in mind. We will find out in the future whether these concerns were right.
	In respect of VAT at least, this Budget has been shambolic. It is not good enough for people to say, “Well, because there has been a change, the whole process is now a good one.” It has not been a good one reputationally for the Government—and perhaps we, as Opposition Members, should be pleased about that. We cannot be pleased, however, when we see the effects that a declining economy has on so many of our constituents, who feel they are faced with a Government who truly are not caring.
	Let us think about the arguments made in defence of some of these changes. On listed buildings, we have heard all sorts of arguments, such as, “The previous situation allowed rich people to build swimming pools.” There was no particular evidence of that, but the Chancellor obviously thought it was a good argument to put up because he liked the idea of presenting himself as being on the side of the small person rather than the rich—despite the overall effect of his Budget policies.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government were, indeed, concerned that alterations were going to be made to create swimming pools, the measure could simply have exempted such alterations?

Sheila Gilmore: That is, indeed, the case. Conducting research and finding good evidence before making and changing policy is of paramount importance. We have seen that in respect of many aspects of this Budget. We saw it in the debate yesterday in respect of the 50p tax rate. There were a lot of hypotheticals—a lot of “maybes” and “perhapses”—but there was not a lot of solid evidence.
	This has been a poor piece of policy making. I congratulate the Government on turning, but if they had thought things through first, they would never have had to turn.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). We have heard each other speak quite a lot over the last eight weeks or so. It is also a pleasure to have a chance to talk on VAT measures.
	I will start by addressing the Opposition’s new clause 12. If we are talking about ill-thought-through measures that should not have been brought forward, this is a prime example. It would cost £12 billion if it were in place for a year, not that the Opposition know how much it would cost or how they would pay for it. It is
	intriguing to ponder how they can tick off the Government for announcing a U-turn that costs a few million pounds a year and accuse us of not having a balanced Budget because of it, while they have a proposal for a £12 billion hole in the Budget that would do untold damage to the public finances, probably completely wreck our country’s reputation for trying to sort out its deficit and lead us into a situation none of us would even want to dream about.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my hon. Friend agree that this £12 billion spending commitment is astonishing and irresponsible and proves how unfit Labour is for government?

Nigel Mills: My hon. Friend may be that cruel, but I probably would not go that far.
	New clause 12 is not a highly principled statement that VAT should be 17.5% rather than 20%, as it would apparently be just a temporary reduction. Moreover, when Labour was in government, it had plans to raise VAT. These are the stances Labour has taken recently: before the election, it had a plan to raise VAT; later, when there was a proposal for a VAT rise, Labour abstained; and now it proposes a temporary cut, back down to 17.5%. The country can be forgiven for not knowing what on earth Labour’s view is. If Labour ever got back into power, would it reduce VAT from this 20% rate that it seems to so loathe?
	This Labour new clause proposes a temporary cut that would apply from Royal Assent to the Bill until the UK economy returns to strong growth. No definition of “strong growth” has been provided. When I asked for one, we were not told that it was 2% or 3% a year. We did not get a sensible approach about it being when the economy is growing based on balanced growth and sustainable industries such as manufacturing, rather than on inflating a massive debt-filled boom. We were told that “strong growth” meant not being in a double-dip recession any more. We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby we reduce VAT on Royal Assent and then, when we get the last quarter’s financial data, which I am sure we all hope show the economy growing again, we have to reverse the temporary cut. It could be in place for only a matter of days, which would result in a huge administrative cost; the move would be utterly pointless. [Interruption.] I hear someone saying from a sedentary position that that is ridiculous, but that is what the new clause would mean. We are doing a serious thing here. We are legislating, not engaging in sixth-form school debate. If we were to pass this new clause tonight, it would be in the Finance Bill, it would become law and it would have to come into effect. This is not a little proposal that we can idly dismiss but an actual idea that the Opposition want us to legislate for. It is clearly nonsensical on all levels, and we need discuss it no further.
	Let me return to the various changes to VAT charging in new schedule 1, where, again, the Government have done exactly the right thing. They proposed some ideas, realised that they contained some mistakes and things that may be impossible to implement, and then changed them in order to get to a better policy. That is surely what we want Government consultations to end up with.
	We do not want the Government to announce something, consult on it and then blindly drive on without listening to any of the criticisms and details of any mistakes in it.

Diana Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that better decision making might come through consulting before putting a proposal to Parliament and getting all the ducks lined up before coming before the House?

Nigel Mills: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I said yesterday that it would be better to consult before trying to legislate, but we did have a detailed consultation document that looked at this idea. I do not think that the legislation to implement this proposal was in the original draft of the Finance Bill, but it would have been brought forward by a statutory instrument later on; although it was announced as an idea, it was not in a legislative form at that point, so strictly speaking the Government have done what she calls for.
	I wish to make one comment on the pasty tax, as an aside. It is clear that when making tax policy we have to avoid things that have a handy popular nickname. We have had big campaigns on the “pasty tax” and the “caravan tax”. It has been a bit harder to get the public behind a “sports drinks nutritional drink tax.” If it had been called a “Lucozade tax”, there might have been more publicity. The Government should be careful in making future tax policy to look out for what nicknames might be used. However, those who favour tax being understandable may feel that all taxes should have a simple nickname so that the public understand what they are for.
	On the new “pasty tax” definitions, I am concerned that we might end up with some things that are unclear, such as the definitions of what is being “marketed” as “hot” and of what wrapping is allowed. We are told, “Don’t worry, it will be clear in HMRC guidance what is allowed.” However, we should be trying to legislate clearly: Parliament should be clear in what it says. I hope the Minister can put on the record that bakeries on the high street that are trying to sell freshly baked products will not find those things subject to VAT unless they are kept hot or are wrapped in a heat-retaining bag, and that using ordinary, simple packaging or marketing those products as “freshly baked” will not be caught. That is absolutely the intention that Parliament has, and we should make it clear.
	On sports drinks, I am concerned about going down the road of having a principle of deciding a tax treatment on the basis of how something is advertised or marketed, rather than on the fundamental underlying nature of the product. We can see that strange ways of how someone chooses to market something might change the tax treatment. I think I understand the aim of this proposal, which is to provide for high-sugar drinks sold as sports drinks when they are not much different from Coca-Cola or other fizzy products that we are trying to equalise the VAT treatment on. The wording in new schedule 1 leaves where the line is open to question.
	We exchanged comments earlier about whether milk could strictly drift into being covered by the wording if it was marketed as something that aids physical performance and whether we risk a court, at some point, taking an utterly perverse and stupid view that milk is caught by the provision, given that we clearly do not intend it to be. We need to be careful what we mean. That line will
	be tested and people will ask, “What is a sports drink that is largely based on milk or some milk-derived product, and what is an ordinary pint of milk?” Where will we draw the line about what is VAT-able? A Mars drink is advertised with the slogan, “Unlike other sports drinks, this milk product actually tastes nice.” It is hard to understand why a Mars milk-flavoured drink is not going to attract VAT but a sports drink will. We need to be careful to avoid people not knowing what we actually mean.
	If I market a whey-based product that is made up into a drink as a sports product, VAT will apply, but if I market it as a diet product or a nutritional supplement, perhaps for the elderly who are struggling to get enough calories in their diet, that will presumably not be VAT-able. All I have to do if I want to buy the thing to use it for sports purposes is choose the one marketed for an old person’s supplement, and although I would be able to use it in exactly the same way as the sports drink on the next shelf, I would be buying it for 20% less. I am not entirely sure that that is what we intend. Although I understand what is going on, we have to be careful if we start defining tax policy based on how something is sold and not on the underlying product.
	With those few remarks, may I finally commend the Government on the position they have got these things into? It is vastly better than where we started, and I will certainly vote for new schedule 1.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I inform hon. Members that I want to bring the Minister in at twenty-past?

Julie Hilling: I took my car for a service last week at my local garage, which is a one-man band. He said, “For heaven’s sake, will you get rid of that lot? They are ruining my business.” When I asked him what he meant and what the Government were doing that was ruining his business, his reply was, “VAT—the 20% rate is destroying my business, and all the other small business owners I know think exactly the same.” Sadly, a reduction in VAT from 20% is not an option in this debate, but putting VAT on to so many other things just increases the problem for hard-pressed businesses and struggling people.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Lady tells us that she went to her garage and the man said, “Get rid of that lot”, but what would her lot do instead to give him much more business? That is what I would be delighted to hear, and I hope that she can give me an answer.

Julie Hilling: What Labour would have had is jobs and growth. We would not have been in a double-dip recession and we would not be in this stupid position of cutting too fast and too deep, which is ruining the British economy. Unfortunately, we are not in government.
	It has been incredibly difficult to prepare this speech, because it is hard to work out, in this omnishambles of a Budget, what this disorganised Government have done a U-turn on. Perhaps I should not call them U-turns, because in many cases the Government have done them
	only partially; I am not sure whether these are L-turns or C-turns. I thought that they had done a full U-turn on the caravan tax, but I discovered this afternoon that they have not done a full U-turn at all, and the pasty tax is as clear as mud. I was having a discussion with colleagues before this debate as to what food is now VAT-able and what is not. It seems that a rotisserie chicken that will be cold when someone eats it is VAT-able, whereas a pasty that comes out of the oven will not be, unless it is put on a hot plate. But what happens if the oven is put on low so that the pasty is just kept warm? Will that pasty be VAT-able or not? The Minister needs to explain to me and the nation how this proposal is different from his first proposal, and how it is to be policed. Will taxmen regularly visit all the sandwich shops in the country to check on their ovens? That needs further explanation.
	What about the mess of heritage tax? Again, we saw panic among Government Members and a little U-turn, perhaps to silence the bishops and return some money to places of worship for their alterations. However, £30 million will not go far, and the tax has been a huge blow to many communities.

Jim Shannon: Some 30,000 listed building consents were given last year, with some £120 million being spent on alterations. Does the hon. Lady feel that that £30 million will be adequate compensation ?

Julie Hilling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, I do not believe that £30 million is anywhere near the sum needed to compensate. Of course, the Government have also said that those people will get lottery and Government grants, but hang on a minute: is that not just taking with one hand and paying back with another? The change has been a huge blow to many communities that have been working for years and years to raise enough money to rescue old buildings and convert them for use for the whole community, only to now have to find another 20%.
	The Government have tried to say that we should not worry too much about the heritage tax as it is really about charging millionaires who live in listed buildings and who get their indoor swimming pool tax-free, but there is no evidence for that. They conclude on the basis of a review of 105 applications that the majority of the work covered by the relief is
	“not necessary for heritage purposes”,
	but as nearly 30,000 listed building applications are made a year, that does not seem to me to be good evidence. From a sample of 12,049 applications, only 34 were for swimming pools. Perhaps we could deal with the problem in a slightly different way rather than imposing the heritage tax on all buildings. Indeed, 50% of those who live in listed buildings are in socio-economic groups C1, C2, D and E—supervisory, clerical, junior management, administrative, skilled workers, semi-skilled workers and unskilled workers. People in those groups are not usually millionaires.
	That implementation of VAT will not raise a great deal of money in the scheme of things, but will be another blow to the construction industry and run the risk of more of our heritage buildings going to rack and ruin. Of course, once VAT is put on something it can never be returned to zero.
	Skip taxes seem to have been introduced and then withdrawn. I think they probably have been withdrawn—who would know? The Government seem to introducing a self-storage tax, however. Self-storage is often used by people in transition, such as those who are selling or buying houses or those whose homes are undergoing renovation. It is also used by people who have downgraded or moved to a different community and therefore have to live in much smaller accommodation. It is usually in a prime location so that customers can come and go as they choose, changing their winter wardrobe for their summer wardrobe or taking goods in or out of storage. Removals and storage providers have storage facilities as an ancillary part of the business and are therefore frequently in more remote places, as the location of the property does not need to attract customers. One reason for putting VAT on self-storage was to level the playing field for removal companies, even though they have different purposes. The effect will be that ordinary people will be hit again. Businesses that use self-storage to store documents and so on will be able to reclaim the VAT, but the ordinary person will not.
	I think we still have a hairdressers tax. That will mean that self-employed hairdressers who rent a chair in a small salon will have no choice other than to register for VAT and decide whether to charge their customers VAT at 20% or to absorb the cost themselves. Of course, that will particularly hit females aged between 16 and 46—the very people whom the Government say they want to encourage to be entrepreneurs, start up their own businesses and pay into society.
	The situation with sports nutrition is another unholy mess. If I have got this right—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I have not—sports drinks will become VAT-able, but sports nutrition products will not. If the Minister wants to intervene, I am happy for him to do so.

David Gauke: indicated  dissent .

Julie Hilling: Does that mean that it will be exempt if a liquid product is made into a solid and people are just advised to drink water with it? What about weight-management products? More than 20% of the products in the sports nutrition category are for weight management. If they are slimming products, they are zero-rated, but they could also be considered to be sports nutrition products. We could have a bizarre situation in which men and women who exercise hard, follow a balanced diet and use sports nutrition products to help them get into shape would pay VAT, whereas those who skip meals, sit on the sofa and take magic slimming products would not.
	It seems odd that we are making that tax change in Olympic year, when we are encouraging people to get fit, but it is typical of this Budget. It is a shambles that will create more anomalies than it will resolve. With all the U-turns—even though we welcome some of them—it is still totally confusing. Even after listening to the Minister this afternoon and spending many weeks on the Bill Committee, I am still not clear what the Budget says.
	Secondly, the Budget rewards millionaires and punishes ordinary people. It punishes the squeezed middle and the battered base, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)frequently mentions. The VAT changes all hurt people who lead ordinary lives. They
	all hit hard-pressed businesses and do absolutely nothing for jobs and growth. The millionaires still get their tax cut, but they are not paying the tax that is due. If the rest of us decided not to pay our taxes, could we have a tax cut too? Or does that apply only to the very rich, who can also avoid their tax by paying accountants a great deal of money to do so?
	The Government forget that there was a global economic crash. They do not like to talk about it. They like to say that it was all the previous Government’s fault, but there was a global economic crash that affected all the countries in the world. They forget that they have created a double-dip recession—[ Laughter. ] They like to laugh, but they inherited an economy that was growing. In two years, they have managed to turn that into a double-dip recession made totally in Downing street. They believe that continuing to cut and cut will somehow magically bring change and growth. Government Members are prepared to accept compromises in their areas of interest but will let others face the full force of the VAT rises. They are prepared to vote for these provisions, even though it means that other businesses and other ordinary people will continue to suffer. The proposal is an omnishambles that will do nothing for jobs and growth and it is simply typical of this Government.

Charlie Elphicke: I want to speak briefly about new schedule 1. In my constituency is A and S Self Storage, run by Diana and George Pelly, which is a small family-run storage business. My concern is about how the new measure will work and I hope that Ministers will take on board some of my points.
	The mischief that the new schedule seeks to attack is the business whereby big companies exercise the option to tax on a piece of land, build a storage facility and later disapply the option to tax, giving themselves a tax advantage. The Treasury have applied VAT on all self-storage and my concern is that some 250,000 people in the UK use self-storage and will find from September onwards that their bills will suddenly go up by 20%. I hope that the Government will consider this a little further and think whether there is a better way to deal with the real mischief, which is the abuse of the option to tax.
	My other concern is that the revenue raised will disproportionately benefit larger businesses that can claim back costs under the capital goods scheme, rather than the smaller businesses, which cannot. Effectively, it will disproportionately benefit the four big players in the self-storage industry at the expense of smaller businesses such as A and S Self Storage. I hope that Ministers will consider that point.
	The Exchequer impact is also in question. The Exchequer says that the measure will raise money, but the Self Storage Association’s brief states:
	“In its calculations the Government has not taken into account the significant reclaim of VAT under the CGS rules, which Deloitte have calculated to be £43m based on the detailed results of their survey…According to Deloitte many operators, particularly the largest ones, could accelerate CGS recovery under existing VAT law.”
	I want to plead for caution on the part of Ministers and ask them to consider carefully the question of tackling the underlying abuse, which is the business of disapplying
	the option to tax. I appreciate that many Members will find that exceptionally dull, as it involves highly technical VAT law, but my principal concern is that it is a hard thing to raise VAT across the board for 250,000 people when one really wants to target the few people who are playing the system to get more tax money for their businesses at the expense of everyone else and of the UK Treasury.

David Gauke: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for their remarks. In many cases it has been a pleasure to work closely with them on some of the Budget measures that we have discussed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for his kind remarks. I am grateful for the courteous and constructive way in which he engaged with us, and I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and, although he is not here, to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who were very involved in these matters. [Hon. Members: “He is here.”] I am delighted to see that he has joined us. Even if I did not know he was here, I would have said something nice about him. He can assess my sincerity on that basis.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dover made a point about the capital goods scheme. I think he was otherwise engaged earlier today, but I confirm to the House that we are making a separate provision by statutory instrument to amend the capital goods scheme so that self-storage providers affected by the measure and whose individual capital items are worth less than the £250,000 threshold for the scheme can opt in to the scheme and have the same input tax recovery benefits as larger providers with capital items that would already qualify for it. My hon. Friend can note that within two minutes of his making a request, the Government have acceded to it. I hope he is pleased with that.
	I want to pick up on some of the points made and say a word or two about some of the new clauses. I think the point that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is addressing in new clause 3 is the funding of sixth-form colleges, as opposed to whether they are charged for VAT. Sixth-form and further education colleges are under the control of local authorities and have always been funded differently from schools or academy schools. I think he has in mind a refund scheme along the lines of that for academies.
	Sixth-form colleges have never been able to receive VAT refunds against expenditure on their non-business activities, but the basic funding principle for sixth-form colleges is that their VAT costs are taken into account within their up-front funding allocation. Thus funding for sixth-form colleges includes cover for various costs, including VAT, on top of the direct costs of teaching. The right hon. Gentleman has put his argument on the record. Essentially, he argues for additional funding for sixth-form colleges. That must be assessed in light of the current fiscal situation.
	New clause 10, which requires an assessment of the impact of the VAT borderline changes, is virtually identical to new clause 3, which was debated and defeated
	in the Committee of the whole House on 18 April, and to amendment 200, which was withdrawn in the Public Bill Committee on 21 June. Given that the amendment was debated and defeated the first time and withdrawn the second time, I suggest that the Opposition withdraw new clause 10 on this occasion.
	On new clause 12, the Opposition have tabled an amendment to return the rate of VAT to 17.5% until
	“such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.”
	This would be very costly. I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was keen not to provide a cost to the House, but the proposal would cost £12 billion to £13 billion. That would substantially erode our fiscal credibility, and if credibility is lost and interest rates rise, the impact on the fiscal position would be severe. We would expect this to have a negative effect on the UK economy. If the Opposition believe that the answer to our current problems is more borrowing, they should stand up and say so. If the solution that the economy needs is a bigger gap between what we raise in tax and what we spend, let me give the hon. Lady the opportunity to say that now.

Catherine McKinnell: Is the Minister aware that the overall borrowing that the Government are engaged in is £9 billion higher now than was planned in October 2010, so the Government’s own economic strategy is resulting in higher, not lower, borrowing?

David Gauke: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady welcomes that. Does she support more borrowing or not? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made its position clear on what would happen if we pursued the policies that the Opposition advocate or have advocated—that moves around a bit. It stretches the Opposition’s credibility if they think that their approach means that borrowing now would be lower. I think the sincere position of the Opposition is that we should have a bigger fiscal stimulus—we should be borrowing more now in order to pump money into the economy. Is that their position?

Catherine McKinnell: The Opposition’s point is that the Government’s own plans are resulting in more borrowing. The alternative is to give a 2.5% VAT cut to households to stimulate demand in the economy and get the economy out of the double-dip recession that it is in and back into growth, which will ultimately bring borrowing down.

David Gauke: So when borrowing is higher than we plan it to be, it is a disaster, but when borrowing is higher because the Opposition would bring that about through a deliberate policy, that would be a fiscal stimulus. I am not entirely clear where they are trying to go with this. We know why the public finances are more difficult than we had anticipated. It is to do with the eurozone, the increase in commodity prices and the fact that the economy took a bigger hit than anyone had previously realised, but a discretionary fiscal loosening of £12 billion or £13 billion, which is what the Opposition are about to vote on, would be taking a huge risk with our credibility.
	It is worth making the point that if we do that, we lose our fiscal credibility and we are likely to see long-term interest rates rise. That will result in our paying out
	more in debt interest. A one-point rise in interest rates would mean £7.5 billion in additional debt interest payments by 2016-17, and an increase for the average mortgage borrower of £1,000 per year. Is that what the Opposition want? Do they think that would help?

Sheila Gilmore: The Minister should accept that he has given a partial quotation from his own Office for Budget Responsibility. He is fond of saying that the recession has been deeper than previously thought. Yes, the OBR did say that, but it also said at exactly the same time that the climb out of that recession had been faster than had previously been thought. That was a result of the economic stimulus measures that the previous Government put in place.

David Gauke: The OBR was very clear about the reasons why the economy did not grow as quickly as it had predicted. That was not because of the measures that we had taken to clamp down on borrowing. It was because of the factors that it set out. Now, at a time when we see other countries without fiscal credibility facing enormous difficulties, the Opposition want a discretional fiscal loosening of £12 billion or £13 billion a year. That is not responsible opposition. That is not a responsible policy and it is not a policy that this Government will pursue. I urge the Opposition not to press new clause 10.
	I note that the Opposition are also opposing the VAT measures in total. That would be an additional cost of £210 million. These are measures that will remove anomalies. We have listened to the concerns raised by hon. Members and others to improve what we initially set out.

Catherine McKinnell: rose —

David Gauke: I will give way, although time is running out.

Catherine McKinnell: Can the Minister clarify how much the U-turns that the Government are legislating for today will cost and whether the £210 million has been factored into them?

David Gauke: After the changes we have announced, the Budget remains fiscally neutral. The reality is that the £70 million we are talking about has to be compared with the policy of cutting VAT, which would cost between £12 billion and £13 billion, and the £210 million for refusing to go ahead with the VAT changes we have announced. I am afraid that that simply underlines the fact that, once again, the Labour party has no fiscal credibility, will not face up to the challenges in the public finances and remains unfit for office.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 2 July).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business  to be concluded  at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Rate of VAT

‘(1) In section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Rate of VAT) for “20 per cent.” substitute “17.5 per cent.”.
	(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect from Royal Assent and shall expire at such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.’.—(Catherine McKinnell.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 240, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 195
	 — 
	Anti-forestalling charge to value added tax

Amendment made: 17,page115,line3, at end insert—
	‘(1) Schedule (Categorisation of supplies) contains provision about the categorisation of supplies for the purposes of value added tax.’.—(Mr Gauke.)

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	‘Categorisation of supplies
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Zero-rated supplies

Introductory
	1 Part 2 of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994 (zero-rating) is amended as follows.
	Food
	2 (1) Group 1 (food) is amended as follows.
	(2) After excepted item 4 insert—
	“4A Sports drinks that are advertised or marketed as products designed to enhance physical performance, accelerate recovery after exercise or build bulk, and other similar drinks, including (in either case) syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of such drinks.”
	(3) In Note (3), omit the words from “and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above” to the end.
	(4) After that Note insert—
	“(3A) For the purposes of Note (3), in the case of any supplier, the premises on which food is supplied include any area set aside for the consumption of food by that supplier’s customers, whether or not the area may also be used by the customers of other suppliers.
	(3B) “Hot food” means food which (or any part of which) is hot at the time it is provided to the customer and—
	(a) has been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed hot,
	(b) has been heated to order,
	(c) has been kept hot after being heated,
	(d) is provided to a customer in packaging that retains heat (whether or not the packaging
	was primarily designed for that purpose) or in any other packaging that is specifically
	designed for hot food, or
	(e) is advertised or marketed in a way that indicates that it is supplied hot.
	(3C) For the purposes of Note (3B)—
	(a) something is “hot” if it is at a temperature above the ambient air temperature, and
	(b) something is “kept hot” after being heated if the supplier stores it in an environment which provides, applies or retains heat, or takes other steps to ensure it remains hot or to slow down the natural cooling process.
	(3D) In Notes (3B) and (3C), references to food being heated include references to it being cooked or reheated.”
	Protected buildings
	3 (1) Group 6 (protected buildings) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit items 2 and 3 (approved alterations and building materials).
	(3) In Note (3), for “(12) to (14) and (22) to (24)” substitute “and (12) to (14)”.
	(4) For Note (4) substitute—
	“(4) For the purposes of item 1, a protected building is not to be regarded as substantially reconstructed unless, when the reconstruction is completed, the reconstructed building incorporates no more of the original building (that is to say, the building as it was before the reconstruction began) than the external walls, together with other external features of architectural or historic interest.”
	(5) In Note (5), in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) omit “or other supply”.
	(6) Omit Notes (6) to (11).
	Caravans
	4 (1) Group 9 (caravans and houseboats) is amended as follows.
	(2) For item 1 substitute—
	“(none) “ Caravans which exceed the limits of size of a trailer for the time being permitted to be towed on roads by a motor vehicle having a maximum gross weight of 3,500 kilogrammes and which—
	(a) were manufactured to standard BS 3632:2005 approved by the British Standards Institution, or
	(b) are second hand, were manufactured to a previous version of standard BS 3632 approved by that Institution and were occupied before 6 April 2013.”
	(3) In item 3 for “5(3)” substitute “5(4)”.
	(4) In the Note for “item 3” substitute “item 4”.

Part 2
	 — 
	Exempt supplies

Land: self storage and facilities to supply hairdressing services
	1 (1) In Part 2 of Schedule 9 to VATA 1994 (exemptions), Group 1 (land) is amended as follows.
	(2) In item 1, after paragraph (k) insert—
	“(ka) the grant of facilities for the self storage of goods;”.
	(3) In that item, omit “and” at the end of paragraph (m) and after that paragraph insert—
	“(ma) the grant of facilities to a person who uses the facilities wholly or mainly to supply hairdressing services; and”.
	(4) In that item, in paragraph (n), for “(m)” substitute “(ma)”.
	(5) After Note (15) insert—
	“(15A) In paragraph (ka)—
	“facilities for the self storage of goods” means the use of a relevant structure for the storage of goods by the person (or persons) to whom the grant of facilities is made, and
	“goods” does not include live animals.
	(15B) For the purposes of Note (15A), use by a person with the permission of the person (or any of the persons) to whom the grant of facilities is made counts as use by the person (or persons) to whom that grant is made.
	(15C) A grant of facilities for the self storage of goods does not fall within paragraph (ka) if—
	(a) the person making the grant (“P”)—
	(i) is doing so in circumstances where the relevant structure used is, or forms part of, a relevant capital item, and
	(ii) is connected with any person who uses that relevant structure for the self storage of goods,
	(b) the grant is made to a charity which uses the relevant structure solely otherwise than in the course of a business, or
	(c) in a case where the relevant structure is part of a building, its use for the storage of goods by the person (or persons) to whom the grant is made is ancillary to other use of the building by that person (or those persons).
	(15D) In Notes (15A) and (15C) “relevant structure” means the whole or part of—
	(a) a container or other structure that is fully enclosed, or
	(b) a unit or building.
	(15E) In Note (15C)(a)(i) “relevant capital item” means a capital item which—
	(a) is subject to adjustments of input tax deduction by P under regulations made under section 26(3), and
	(b) has not yet reached the end of its prescribed period of adjustment.”
	(6) After Note (16) insert—
	“(17) Paragraph (ma) does not apply to a grant of facilities which provides for the exclusive use, by the person to whom the grant is made, of a whole building, a whole floor, a separate room or a clearly defined area, unless the person making the grant or a person connected with that person provides or makes available (directly or indirectly) services related to hairdressing for use by the person to whom the grant is made.
	(18) For the purposes of Note (17)—
	(a) “services related to hairdressing” means the services of a hairdresser’s assistant or cashier, the booking of appointments, the laundering of towels, the cleaning of the facilities subject to the grant, the making of refreshments and other similar services typically used in connection with hairdressing, but does not include the provision of utilities or the cleaning of shared areas in a building, and
	(b) it does not matter if the services related to hairdressing are shared with other persons.
	(19) For the purposes of Notes (15C) and (17) any question whether a person is connected with any other person is to be determined in accordance with section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (connected person).”

Part 3
	 — 
	Supplies chargeable at reduced rate

1 (1) Schedule 7A to VATA 1994 (charged at reduced rate) is amended as follows.
	(2) In Part 1 (index to reduced-rate supplies of goods and service), at the appropriate place insert—
	
		
			 “Caravans Group 12” 
		
	
	(3) In Part 2 (the groups), at the end insert—

“GROUP 12
	 — 
	CARAVANS

Item No1 Supplies of caravans which exceed the limits of size of a trailer for the time being permitted to be towed on roads by a motor vehicle having a maximum gross weight of 3,500 kilogrammes.2 The supply of such services as are described in paragraph 1(1) or 5(4) of Schedule 4 in respect of a caravan within item 1.
	NOTE:
	This Group does not include—
	(a) removable contents other than goods of a kind mentioned in item 4 of Group 5 of Schedule 8, or
	(b) the supply of accommodation in a caravan.”

Part 4
	 — 
	Commencement and transitional provision

1 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the amendments made by this Schedule come into force on 1 October 2012.
	(2) Paragraphs 4 and 6 come into force on 6 April 2013.
	(3) Paragraph 3(2) to (6) comes into force, in relation to relevant supplies, on 1 October 2015.
	(4) A supply is “relevant” if it is—
	(a) a supply of any services, other than excluded services, which is made—
	(i) in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building, and
	(ii) pursuant to a written contract entered into, or a relevant consent applied for, before 21 March 2012, or
	(b) a supply of building materials which is made—
	(i) to a person to whom the supplier is supplying services within paragraph (a) which include the incorporation of the materials into the building (or its site) in question, and
	(ii) pursuant to a written contract entered into, or a relevant consent applied for, before 21 March 2012.
	(5) In relation to supplies made on or after 1 October 2012 but before 1 October 2015, Group 6 has effect as if, for the purposes of item 1 of that Group, a protected building were also regarded as substantially reconstructed if sub-paragraph (6) or (7) applies.
	(6) This sub-paragraph applies if at least three-fifths of the works carried out to effect the reconstruction (measured by reference to cost) are of such a nature that the supply of services (other than excluded services), materials and other items to carry out the works would, if supplied by a taxable person, be relevant supplies.
	(7) This sub-paragraph applies if—
	(a) at least 10% (measured by reference to cost) of the reconstruction of the protected building was completed before 21 March 2012, and
	(b) at least three-fifths of the works carried out to effect the reconstruction (measured by reference to cost) are of such a nature that the supply of services (other than excluded services), materials and other items to carry out the works would, if supplied by a taxable person, be relevant supplies but for the requirement for a written contract to have been entered into or relevant consent to have been applied for before that date.
	(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), works carried out that are not within the scope of the written contract entered into, or the relevant consent applied for, as it stood immediately before 21 March 2012, are not a supply made pursuant to that contract or relevant consent.
	(9) In this paragraph—
	“excluded services” means the services of an architect, surveyor or other person acting as consultant or in a supervisory capacity;
	“Group 6” means Group 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 8 to VATA 1994 (protected buildings);
	“relevant consent” means—
	(a) in the case of an ecclesiastical building to which section 60 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies, consent for the approved alterations by a competent body with the authority to approve alterations to such buildings, or(b) in any other case, consent under any provision of—
	(10) The Notes of Group 6 apply in relation to this paragraph as they apply in relation to that Group, except that in applying Notes (9), (10) and (11), references to item 2 are to be read as references to sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph.’.—(Mr Gauke.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the schedule be added to the Bill.
	The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 230.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New schedule 1 added to the Bill

Schedule 26
	 — 
	Anti-forestalling charge to VAT

Amendments made: 18,page589,line16, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
	Amendment 19,page589,line24, after ‘a supply’ insert
	‘of a description specified in paragraph 3’.
	Amendment 20,page589,line28, leave out ‘the order’ and insert
	‘the amendments made by Schedule (Categorisation of supplies)’. —(
	Mr Gauke.
	)

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Bank bonus tax

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review how a bank bonus tax could be repeated and place a report in the library of the House of Commons by 1 September 2012 on how the revenue raised could be invested in a Real Jobs Guarantee to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.’.—(Catherine McKinnell.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Catherine McKinnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	In this new clause we call on the Government to consider repeating the bank bonus tax, which raised £3.5 billion in 2010-11, and to use the revenue to create 100,000 jobs for young people. It is an understatement that this has not been a good few weeks for the banks. First, there were the disgraceful mistakes at Royal Bank of Scotland that left thousands of people unable to access their own money for up to a week. I am sure that top bankers there managed to get by for a few days, but for people on low incomes it is no laughing matter to be left without a week’s wages.

Gavin Williamson: Does the hon. Lady think that those who set up the regulatory system that governed the banks, such as the shadow Chancellor, should come to the House to apologise?

Catherine McKinnell: Then came the shocking revelations at Barclays—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—of traders fiddling the markets, cheating with mortgage and lending rates.

Mark Hoban: Will the hon. Lady not have the courtesy to answer my hon. Friend’s question?

Catherine McKinnell: I will answer the question, but it was rather an insult to the people who have suffered from the situation at RBS, which was caused by administrative failures and poor management. The question put by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) does not address the severity of the matters that I am laying before the House.
	Then came the shocking revelations at Barclays: of traders fiddling the markets, cheating with mortgage and lending rates—

Gavin Williamson: rose—

Catherine McKinnell: It would be more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make his intervention now, but I will complete my sentence. Those traders then paid each other for the favours with bottles of Bollinger.

Gavin Williamson: The point that I was trying to ask the hon. Lady to explore was that the regulatory system put in place under the last Labour Government has led to market failure and the recent LIBOR problems. Does she not think that the shadow Chancellor should come to the House to explain why he took no action when he was City Minister? Yes or no?

Catherine McKinnell: I was talking about the situation at RBS, which was caused by a total administrative meltdown and computer failure; it had nothing to do with regulation. On the subject of regulation, Conservative Members called for less regulation. Politicians on both sides of the House need to consider where we go from here.

Mark Lazarowicz: Whatever people say about the banks’ responsibility for things that happened in the past, there can be no doubt that what has happened at RBS in the past few days is the responsibility of people running the bank now and of those responsible for the financial sector now, who include the Government.
	It is not just those on low incomes who suffer from the damage caused by the difficulties at RBS, which obviously is trying its best to resolve them. Businesses in my constituency have contacted me saying that if the problem is not resolved immediately, they face closure. The Government need to take that issue seriously, but clearly they are not.

Catherine McKinnell: I absolutely agree with those sentiments. When discussing the impact that the total administrative failure at RBS had had, particularly on those on low wages but also, as my hon. Friend has just said, on small businesses, I was shocked and taken aback at the political opportunism involved in jumping up and raising a question about regulation, which is entirely irrelevant to the matter that I was discussing.

Charlie Elphicke: The issue had an enormous impact on the amount of taxes paid in this country. Why were interest rates being rigged by the previous Government, according to the memo?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The subject before us is what we will be debating, Mr Elphicke; we do not need to be sidetracked at this stage. I call Catherine McKinnell.

Catherine McKinnell: rose—

Grahame Morris: rose—

Catherine McKinnell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will raise a much more relevant matter in his intervention.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s patience and tolerance in the face of such provocation. Does she agree that part of the problem that we are trying to address through new clause 13 is the culture of excessive bonuses? Opposition Members recognise that that is part of the problem and we are trying to address it with the bank bonus tax.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend. I have not made much progress yet, but the point that I was trying to make is that a whole series of actions by the banks have let ordinary people and businesses down. It is time that the banks played their part in putting some of that right.

Bill Esterson: I apologise if I am preventing my hon. Friend from making progress. She need take no lessons from Conservative Members about regulation. They wanted less regulation, not more, and the point that they are trying to make now is disgraceful.
	The issue is fairness. People are crying out for a repeat of the bank bonus tax in these tough times. Those with the broadest shoulders should make the biggest contribution in dealing with our problems. Many problems, particularly those faced by young people, could be resolved by the new clause.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend sums up in a nutshell why I am speaking in favour of the new clause.
	The shocking revelations from Barclays this week are nothing short of a scandal. Barclays—along with we do not know how many other banks now under investigation —broke the rules to make a profit and put global economic stability at risk. It played fast and loose with rates that affect people’s mortgages and credit cards and, it would appear, gave little thought to how people could be affected.
	In another shocking scandal, we found out that thousands of small businesses had been sold expensive insurance products that they did not need and could not use, spending money, which could have been used to protect jobs, to pay for products that never should have been offered to them in the first place. How many businesses have lost out as a result? All those actions on the part of the banks were totally unacceptable. The banks have been taking without giving back. The Government can take action now to put the situation right.

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. I agree that the Government should take action to address some of the issues that have been raised. She mentioned a number of scandals. Will she name, for the record, the years when they occurred and which Government were in power when they occurred?

Catherine McKinnell: Members of the public will find this distasteful. We all share concern about the situation with the banks and the terrible events that have come to light in the past week or so. Government Members should be taking the lead on putting the situation right, but all they are interested in is scoring party political
	points. They need to be careful if they are not to lose all the public’s trust in their ability to start putting things right.
	The Government can take action today. Stephen Hester, chief executive of RBS, has rightly said that he will decline his bonus this year in recognition of the serious damage that his bank has caused. Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, resigned this morning over the currently developing scandal. It is right that those in charge take responsibility.
	However, the banking industry as a whole is still benefiting from a tax cut this year—a tax cut, when their incompetence has cost thousands of people days of frustration, inconvenience and hardship. They have a tax cut when champagne swaps and dodgy dealing have been used to fiddle internal lending rates and when small businesses have been ripped off in yet another mis-selling scandal.
	Our bank bonus tax would set that right, making the banks pay their fair share in tax instead of letting them get away with it. We want the money to be used to create 100,000 jobs for young people who are risk of becoming the next victims of this double-dip recession made in Downing street. Labour’s bank payroll tax raised £3.5 billion in 2010-11 but this Government replaced it in 2011-12 with a levy raising just £1.8 million—barely more than half. Those are the Office for Budget Responsibility’s own figures, set out on page 101 of its economic and fiscal outlook paper in March this year.
	The autumn statement in November last year had forecast a higher first take, but that turned out to be over-optimistic. That could be the case with future forecasts. The levy is supposed to raise £2.8 billion in 2014-15, but we cannot be sure of getting that. The OBR has had to keep revising all forecasts down and down, apart from those for Government borrowing, which keep going up and up. It is clearly inadequate to introduce a levy on banks with only half the yield of the previous tax. Along with the richest 1% of the country who have benefited from the scrapping of the 50p tax rate, this is one of the only parts of the Budget where the Government have given handouts. What does that tell us about their priorities? It tells us that they are not on the side of working people hit by the banks’ recent malpractice, but on the side of banks and millionaires. That shows just how out of touch this Government are.
	We want to take tough measures to make the banks pay their way, and bringing back the bonus tax on top of the new levy is the fairest way to do that. It is clear where that extra money needs to go. We would use our double bank tax to plug the gaping hole in jobs and growth left by the Chancellor’s omnishambles of a Budget, which contained not one mention of the word “jobs”.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Lady envisages producing 100,000 jobs. What sort of jobs would they be, and how would they contribute to the economy?

Catherine McKinnell: It is nice to receive a considered intervention from a Conservative Member. The 100,000 jobs would be created through support from the future jobs fund. They would be guaranteed jobs paid at the national minimum wage for six months to give young people a real chance of getting on to the employment ladder.
	This is about not only providing those jobs but creating economic growth and putting money into people’s pockets to create those opportunities. That aspect was absent from the Chancellor’s Budget speech, which is all the more shocking because of the seriousness of the problem. At Christmas, the number of young unemployed people reached 1 million for the first time since comparable records began, and long-term youth unemployment is rocketing too. Across the UK, the number of people aged 24 and under who are claiming out-of-work benefits for more than six months has increased by 60% since May 2010, while the number claiming for more than 12 months has more than doubled by over 125%. In this double-dip recession, young people cannot find work because between five and 10 people are chasing every vacancy. Depending on which part of the country they are in, it could be, and often is, a lot worse. The jobs are simply not there for young people to go into.
	Yet the Government recklessly cancelled the very programme that was designed to create youth jobs. We want to use money raised from banks to put that right. In opposition, the Government supported Labour’s future jobs fund, which got young people into real, paid jobs. The Prime Minister called it “a good scheme”, and the Conservatives said that they had
	“no plans to change existing Future Jobs Fund commitments”.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for my response to his intervention; in fact, it is through the real jobs guarantee that we would look to invest in new job opportunities for 100,000 young people. The future jobs fund was the successful scheme that the Prime Minister heralded as “a good scheme” but it was scrapped as soon as this Government took power.
	I see that no Liberal Democrats are here for this debate. That is a crying shame and a shocking indictment of their commitment to young people and to making sure that bankers pay their way. The Liberal Democrats also pledged their support to the future jobs fund but swiftly supported the Government in scrapping it as soon as they got into power. In April 2010, in a letter to the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, their then work and pensions spokesperson —now the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—said:
	“We have no plans to change or reduce existing government commitments to the Future Jobs Fund. We believe that more help is needed for young people, not less”.
	The future jobs fund was scrapped just one month after that letter was sent.
	Let us remind ourselves of what that scheme achieved. It offered every young person up to the age of 25 a job if they had been out of work for six months, with penalties for anyone who refused the opportunity. The jobs were real jobs, paid at the minimum wage, that lasted for six months—and that was guaranteed.

Alison McGovern: Has my hon. Friend read, as I have, the research from the DWP that tells of the impact on young people not only in terms of numbers but in terms of their confidence, dignity and self-worth?

Catherine McKinnell: I absolutely agree. It is not just about giving opportunities to young people where so few exist, but about this desperately concerning period in which we risk creating an entire lost generation, because young people are coming out of school, higher education and college and finding no opportunities at the other end. Once they fail to get on to the ladder of work and opportunities, the consequences can be long term and cause a lifetime of damage. The Government need to factor that in and grasp it now before it is too late to make sure that these opportunities are provided and that too many young people do not miss out. That is why it is so important that we use this opportunity to make sure that the bankers who caused much of the global economic and financial meltdown take responsibility for that and pay their way, giving young people real chances and opportunities.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for repeating the bank bonus tax. Does she agree that the Government should be considering the evidence from the 1980s about the effect that long spells of youth unemployment had on young people and how hard it was for many of them ever to find decent jobs and catch up? As a result of the Government’s delay and refusal to adopt this policy, they are in grave danger of repeating exactly the same mistakes, with all the misery that that will cause.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention and reminds me particularly of my own region, the north-east, where too many people lost out on opportunities in the 1980s and never quite recovered from the experience. When I talk to young people today, I find that some of the brightest are coming out of school and choosing not to go to university or college but instead to try desperately to find whatever work opportunities might be available to them because, apart from the fact that they are put off by the tuition fees, they are so worried that if they did step on the ladder and go to university they would come out at the end to find there were still no opportunities. There is a deep sense of anxiety among young people that the Government need to be seriously aware of.
	That is what is so concerning about the scrapping of the future jobs fund, which was not only providing real opportunities for young people and breaking the cycles of lack of opportunity, but helping businesses to open up and take on young people in particular. The Government replaced it with the work experience scheme, which they eventually rolled out last year and which offers only eight-week, unpaid placements. There is nothing to say that that is not valuable in itself, but it is simply not doing enough for enough young people. It is also available only for people under 21, so it does not cover unemployed people who have left further or higher education. Again, that compounds some of the anxieties that young people are expressing to me when they say that if they go on to college or university they will be no better offer at the end and they will instead be saddled with a lifetime of debt.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is worth remembering, is it not, that this younger age group, who will no longer be getting jobs under the future jobs fund, but only its successor, will also be one of the main targets of the Government’s cuts in welfare benefits?

Catherine McKinnell: Yes. I think that we all shuddered when we heard the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister which will mean that under 25-year-olds must either live at home or become homeless.
	The youth contract, which was introduced only in April this year—too little, too late—offers very little extra, with no guarantee of a job, no guarantee of the minimum wage, but what the Government call “personalised support”, which we know from leaks could be little more than a weekly text message.
	I am surprised that Government Members are not jumping up to proclaim the Government’s success with apprenticeships. Even with apprenticeships, it is difficult to believe the figures on the tin, particularly after McDonald’s recently revealed that it had spent £10 million of Government funding but had not created a single new job. The money was used to fund career progression for existing staff. That may be a worthy aim, but this is not the dawn of the apprenticeship revolution that the Government would have us believe.

Charlie Elphicke: Would the bank bonus tax proposed in the new clause be in addition to or replace the Government’s bank levy?

Catherine McKinnell: I am happy to confirm that it would be in addition to the levy. We raised £3.5 billion from the bank bonus tax in 2010-11 and would like the same amount to be raised again.

Charlie Elphicke: That was the gross figure, but what was the net figure?

Catherine McKinnell: I am going by the OBR’s figures. I suggest that the Government do the same if they want to take advantage of this opportunity.
	It is clear that we need action on jobs for young people. The bank bonus tax would bring in the money that is needed to create the real, paid jobs that will give under-25s the start that they need to get into the job market. That money could put £100,000 young people into jobs. Austerity on its own clearly cannot do that. The cuts are going too far and too fast, are choking off the recovery and are making it harder for people to get into work. We need an extra stimulus.
	Rather than give the banks a tax cut this year, we want to make them pay their fair share of tax. We would use that money to give young people the start that the Government’s hotch-potch of schemes is failing to provide. That is what the new clause would achieve and I urge hon. Members to support it.

Charlie Elphicke: I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	It is important to distinguish between the policies of the previous Government and those of the current Government. The bank bonus tax and the bank levy have a different ethos or philosophy. The original bonus tax—Members will correct me if I am wrong—was intended to be a one-off measure. In the March 2010 Budget, the Labour Government confirmed that the tax would not be extended, even though the gross yield proved to be higher than had been forecast.

Grahame Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem with the banking crisis is the excessive bonus culture? Perhaps shareholders and Governments should have dealt with that, but we will discuss that on Thursday. Is this proposal not an attempt to address that issue and to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders, who have done so well over the past 10 years with their huge bonus payments, make a contribution now that times are tough?

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but there are two problems with his argument. First, the tax would fall not on the greedy employees and bankers whom he wants to whip, but on the bank. Secondly, during his Government’s period of office—he will correct me if I am wrong—Fred Goodwin received some £15 million in bonuses, which he paid tax on at the old tax rate. The hon. Gentleman is therefore seeking to close the door after the horse has bolted.

Grahame Morris: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous and accommodating, as always. Does he know what the bonus figure has been for Bob Diamond over the past two years, while the hon. Gentleman’s Government have been in office?

Charlie Elphicke: For me, the issue is the size of the bonuses not in the private banks, but in the taxpayer-owned banks. That is the real concern that we ought to be focusing on. That is why the Government’s bank levy is the right way forward.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose —

Charlie Elphicke: Let me develop my point and I will then take further interventions.
	The Government’s bank levy is the right way forward because if we take too much money out of the banking system, we will be pulling out capital. If we pull out too much capital through taxation—or, indeed, through dividends—we will constrain the ability of the banks to lend. We have a crisis in which banks are not lending because they are hoarding capital. If we pull more capital out of the banking system, it will constrain the granting of mortgages and loans to small businesses. In my constituency, that is an important issue, because many small businesses are having great difficulty in getting the lending that they need.

Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he not aware that long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has risen by 100% since this time last year? Does he not think that desperate action is required to bring that figure back down to zero?

Charlie Elphicke: I am all too aware that my constituency has had a difficult time and that youth unemployment has been rising. It rose significantly in the last Parliament under the previous Government, who completely mismanaged the economy. I welcome the fact that the jobseeker’s allowance count in my constituency has fallen in the latest figures. That is really positive. All of us are, of course, concerned about unemployment and want to see more jobs and money. That is why we need
	to get the banks lending again. That will help businesses to expand and to create the jobs, money and prosperity that we want to see.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am little unclear about the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position. He is against taking money out of the banks in the form of a bank bonus tax because it would affect the capital that they can lend to businesses. I think that is a fair assessment of his position. However, that criticism also applies to the bank levy that his Government are in favour of. How is it that he is in favour of a bank levy that takes capital out of banks, but against a bank bonus tax that is paid for by the people who get the bonuses?

Charlie Elphicke: My position is that the bank levy strikes the right balance. That is why I asked the shadow Minister whether her proposal would be in addition to, or an alternative to, the bank levy. That is significant. She is arguing, on the gross figures, for more than £3 billion more to be pulled out of the banking system. That would have an immediate effect on the capital that banks can lend to small businesses and hard-pressed home owners.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman says that his solution is to get the banks lending again. This Government have categorically failed at that. What we are coming forward with is a concrete set of proposals. He has acknowledged that youth unemployment in his constituency is a problem and that it has doubled since his Government came to power. Why will he not accept concrete proposals that would deal with the blight that faces many young people in his constituency?

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that we give with one hand and take away with the other. He might think that he can throw lots of money at dealing with the problem of youth unemployment, but he would meanwhile be constraining businesses in getting the capital that they need to create new jobs and maintain their existing jobs. That is the central flaw in the Opposition’s argument. They want to take more money out of the banking system when capital and lending are already constrained.
	The issue that we need to deal with is bonuses. The Government have taken action on bonuses in the taxpayer-owned banks. They have said that there will be no cash bonuses of more than £2,000 at the taxpayer-owned banks. It is right to have longer-term share incentivisation schemes, which align people’s interests with the success of the banks over the longer term.

Grahame Morris: The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting argument. Does he agree that bonuses have been too high not just in the state-owned banks but in the privately owned banks, and that shareholders should do their duty and exercise some control over bonus pots? Bonuses have been paid in banks, such as Barclays, that performance has clearly not justified.

Charlie Elphicke: Shareholders have been exercising control. Under this Government we have seen the shareholder spring and real action by institutional investors to restrain pay in the boardroom, which grew so much under the previous Government. Under the current Government, there has been action to ensure that shareholders have
	far greater power over remuneration reports and can push down the excessive rewards that have been given for not enough success.
	It is right that an honest day’s work means an honest day’s pay and really good work deserves really good pay, but it is fundamentally wrong to say that the Government have not taken action. They have encouraged shareholders to do their bit as business owners to ensure that we do not have the excessive pay of yesteryear. A responsible Opposition would say, “We congratulate the Government on ensuring that excessive pay is stopped, and we take responsibility for the fact that when we were in government, we allowed a something-for-nothing culture in which everyone knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.” We need an understanding of the value of things once again. The Government have got it right by saying that there will not be excessive bonuses in the taxpayer-owned banks. Although the Project Merlin agreement was not perfect, it was a move in the right direction, as is the permanent bank levy that the Government have introduced, which raises £2.5 billion a year.
	The Opposition would have us believe that their bank bonus levy raised more money than the coalition’s bank levy, but that does not quite stack up, does it? The gross receipts from the Labour Government’s bank bonus tax were £3.45 billion, but the net yield was estimated to be more like £2.3 billion. The explanation for that was given by Lord Sassoon in a detailed written answer to Lord Myners. Under the current Government—Ministers will correct me if I have got it wrong—the permanent bank levy raises about £2.5 billion, which is more money than Labour’s levy. I would have thought the Opposition would welcome that.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the amount raised by Labour’s levy was lower than £3.5 billion, but the Office for Budget Responsibility has given only one figure. Can he confirm what it was?

Charlie Elphicke: The OBR has given so many different figures that I do not know exactly which one the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I will read him what Lord Sassoon said:
	“The net yield raised by the bank payroll tax is estimated to be £2.3 billion, while gross receipts were £3.45 billion. An explanation of the methodology underlying the estimate of net yield can be found in”
	a previous written answer. He continued:
	“In line with guidance from the Office for National Statistics, the yield from the bank payroll tax was allocated to the 2010-11 tax year, as this is the point at which the tax was passed into legislation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2011; Vol. 724, c. WA57.]
	The current Government’s levy on banks therefore raised more than the previous Government’s levy.
	The previous Government said that their levy was meant to be a one-off, but now Labour is in opposition it is saying, “Let’s make it permanent.” It also wants to make it additional to the permanent bank levy, and it is using the recent scandal, of which Barclays is the first
	bank to be found guilty publicly, as an excuse to do that. It should be more responsible in opposition than that.

Bill Esterson: As the hon. Gentleman will not admit to the figure that the OBR gave for Labour’s levy, I will tell him that it was £3.5 billon. The Government set up the OBR as an independent organisation to give such figures, so I am absolutely amazed that he will not rely on it. That is nearly double the amount raised by the current bank levy in its first year, and significantly more than is predicted for coming years. As we have heard from the shadow Minister, the predicted figure is falling because of the recession that has been created in Downing street.

Charlie Elphicke: I believe that the OBR’s figure was for gross receipts, which were not £3.5 billion but £3.45 billion. We need to examine the net yield raised, which was £2.3 billion. That is a lower figure than the £2.5 billion raised under the current Government’s system. I appreciate that the difference between net and gross can be confusing, because not all of us are accountants—I certainly am not. Nevertheless, more cash is coming through the door under the current Government’s arrangements.
	The hon. Gentleman’s argument misses a central point, which is that the Opposition want their bank bonus levy to be an additional impost on the banks. My concern is that that would pull more capital out of the banking system. Right now, we need to lend to business and kick-start the economy.

Grahame Morris: The hon. Gentleman says that accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but how does he weigh the cost to the banks against the cost to this lost generation—the 100,000 people in Dover, Easington and the constituencies we represent—consigned to a life on the dole?

Charlie Elphicke: If we get lending going again, the economy growing again and decent private sector jobs creating more wealth as a nation, we will do better over the longer term. Having short-term measures to create jobs out of thin air—the 100,000 jobs that the Opposition talk about, for example, which would broadly be public sector-type and make-work-type jobs—is not the way to create a sustainable economy. We need to expand the private sector, expand business and expand jobs, so that they are sustainable over the longer term, not just for a year or two.

Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the theory that the hon. Gentleman is putting before the House, but is he aware that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is projected to cost £25 billion more than was predicted in 2010? So his theory is just not working.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Lady knows that the economic recovery is being held up by the chilling effect of the eurozone and because the previous Government made an even bigger mess of the economy than was previously thought. So of course it has taken us longer to recover. None of us wants our economic difficulties to continue; we want the economy to improve, but this can be done, in part, by getting banks lending again and ensuring they have the capital needed to do that safely.

Bill Esterson: rose —

Charlie Elphicke: I have taken enough interventions. I have been generous in giving way and in dealing in detail with the hon. Gentleman’s points in particular.
	The Opposition are saying, it seems, that we should take more money out of the banking system, but that would be irresponsible because it would constrain banks’ ability to lend. The Opposition use Barclays as an excuse to blame everything on greedy traders manipulating the LIBOR interest rate. I would urge caution, however, because I have looked through some of the internal documents floating around, particularly the note of a conversation involving Paul Tucker of the Bank of England. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall briefly read it to the House by way of scene-setting and to demonstrate the Opposition’s mischievousness in seeking to impose this tax.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to make a fascinating point, but he will of course assure me that it is relevant to the new clause.

Charlie Elphicke: It is indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because a key part of the Opposition’s rationale for the new clause is that what happened at Barclays was so disgraceful that we need to punish the bankers. A large part of the shadow Minister’s argument is that these bankers are outrageous and we need to impose a tax. My point, however, is that we need to consider the wider picture. I am particularly concerned about the comments concerning what the previous Government did on regulation as well as tax. It says here:
	“Mr Tucker stated the levels of calls he was receiving from Whitehall were senior and that, while he was certain that we did not need advice, that it did not always need to be the case that we appeared as high as we have recently.”
	It seems it was not only greedy bankers manipulating the interest rates and putting pressure on the LIBOR interest recording; it seems more clearly to have gone to the heart of government and to have been sanctioned by Downing street, according to some comments on the internet. When we talk about how to tax the banks, we need to consider how to get more lending and ensure responsible banking with incentives for the long term. We also need to ensure that members of the previous Government accept their responsibility for the Barclays scandal, the LIBOR situation and their own behaviour.

Catherine McKinnell: The information that the hon. Gentleman is laying out is very interesting, but I would like to make it clear that the Labour party has been calling for an additional levy on banks’ payrolls this year for months, if not a year—I do not have the exact date. The scandal that has unfolded this week has highlighted the contribution that the banks made to the financial collapse and the collapse of the banks, which led to the economic recession that we have suffered. For that reason—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Catherine McKinnell: It’s okay.

Dawn Primarolo: No, not okay. All interventions are supposed to be brief, and that includes Front-Bench interventions. I think we have got the gist of it now.

Charlie Elphicke: What I have set out also highlights the previous Government’s role in failing to regulate and, it seems, in indulging in a bit of market manipulation pressure of their own. I do not think that is acceptable. In her scene setting, the shadow Minister was basically saying, “What happened at Barclays is outrageous; therefore we need to do this.” What I am saying is that we should be careful what we wish for, because banks need enough capital to lend to small businesses, to create the jobs and money that we need to expand the economy and make this country a great success in the next 10 years, building Britain back up to the sort of success that we saw in the ’80s.

Ian Lavery: New clause 13 is extremely important and deals with the bank bonus tax for youth jobs. It is an admirable new clause.
	It is indisputable that the financial services industry is an essential part of our economy, but equally, there must be an acceptance that the industry—the banks and the financial institutions—needs to pay its way. The June 2010 Budget announced that a levy based on banks’ balance sheets would be introduced from 1 January 2011. Labour supports the bank levy, but we want to go further. We want to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax, which brought in an estimated £3.5 billion. We can argue about net and gross, as the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) explained; however, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the bankers’ bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion. Despite slight increases in the rate of the levy, the Government’s failure to repeat Labour’s bank bonus tax—and, in the meantime, create more than 100,000 jobs for young people—means that the banks simply received tax cuts last year and will do so in future years. It is wholly unacceptable, when we have a double-dip recession, for us to allow banks off with fortunes and tax cuts year on year.
	In the last financial year, the amount raised by the bank levy was just over half the amount raised by Labour’s bank bonus tax—£1.8 billion, compared with £3.5 billion. The Chancellor’s spending review plans have simply failed. The Government’s austerity measures have led to the flatlining of growth in the economy, resulting in long-term youth unemployment spiralling to record levels. In the last year it has gone up by 112%, while the number of young people out of work for over a year has gone up even more, by around 156%. That is the result of the Government scrapping the future jobs fund, immediately after they came to power, without putting a viable alternative in place. They had no idea what would replace the fund or how on earth they would be able to create any employment, for young people in particular. The Work programme started only a year later, in June 2011, and we all know now, from people coming to our surgeries, about the difficulties that the workfare and other programmes have created.
	That is why we are calling for Labour’s youth jobs guarantee, which would redress the Government’s scrapping of the future jobs fund. On a cautious estimate, we believe that the bank bonus tax could raise at least £2 billion this year, which the Government could use to
	build thousands of affordable homes and introduce the real jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed.
	As part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, the real jobs guarantee would cost £600 million, and would provide a six-month job for every 18 to 24-year-old who had been on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more. We estimate that it could assist up to 110,000 people in that category. The Government would pay full wages directly to the business, which would cover 25 hours of work per week at the minimum wage. That would equate to about £4,000 per job. In return, the employer would be expected to cover the young person’s training and development for a minimum of 10 hours a week. The ultimate objective would be the opportunity of a permanent job at the end of the six months. New clause 13 would tackle the issue of youth unemployment, and make the banks pay their way.
	The banking industry has been in the news for all the wrong reasons over the past few days. Bob Diamond has resigned from Barclays, only days after the bank was fined a record £290 million for attempting to manipulate the inter-bank lending rate known as LIBOR. A simpler explanation of that activity would be to call it corporate fiddling. In my constituency, young people aged 24 under whose only crime is to be unemployed in area that has few job opportunities are being threatened with losing their entitlement to benefit. Let us compare that with Mr Diamond’s situation. He has been the chief executive of a bank that has been fined a record £290 million for attempting to manipulate interest rates. It will be extremely interesting to see what sort of gold-plated handshake he receives following his timely resignation. I am sure that he will walk away with a fair amount, leaving him an even more extremely wealthy man than he is already.
	Figures published by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility show that last year’s bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion, which is considerably more than the £2.3 billion that the Tories claim it raised. Cautious estimates show that the bank bonus tax could raise in excess of £2 billion this year. What an opportunity for jobs and growth. What an opportunity for 100,000-plus young people to gain some form of employment. We should grasp that opportunity with both hands, but we can see what the situation really is.
	The money from the banks could be used to build thousands of affordable homes, which would provide a much-needed boost to our construction industry. It could be used for investment in infrastructure such as school buildings. Investment in school buildings is much needed at several schools in my constituency. I have visited numerous schools there in the past two or three months and, believe me, we have some fine teachers, some fine staff and some fantastic pupils, but we cannot use those words to describe the facilities in which they are working.
	We would introduce the real jobs guarantee for long-term unemployed young people. Such an initiative would be welcomed in my constituency and throughout the north-east. It would be a significant step because, believe me, there are many young people in Wansbeck and the
	north-east who have never had the opportunity of any employment. That is the harsh reality. Sadly, in communities throughout my constituency, we continue to feel the effects of the coalition Government’s economic policy as the number of people out of work continues to rise at the same time as job opportunities reduce. Under this Government, youth unemployment is our only growth industry.
	On a country and regional basis, the highest rates of unemployment are in the north-east, standing at 11.3%. Over the last year, the greatest rise in the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate was also in the north-east—up 1.8 percentage points. Between February and April 2012, 1.01 million people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed—a rise of 119,000 compared with the same quarter only a year ago. The unemployment rate for those aged 16 to 24 is 21.9% of all economically active people in this age group—an increase of 2.6 percentage points on the previous year.
	In my constituency, the official figures show that the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants aged 24 and under has increased by 22.4% in the last year. The number of JSA claimants per jobcentre vacancy is 15, but in large parts of Wansbeck the figure is in excess of 50 people going for each vacancy. These figures do not include the hundreds of jobs lost with the closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, nor the huge number of jobs in the supply chain that will be lost. They do not include either those who will lose their jobs as a consequence of the coalition’s attack on the public sector; in my constituency, 53% of those employed work in the public sector.
	Within those horrendous statistics are a huge number of young people who are denied the opportunity of employment, many of them, of course, women. With in excess of 1 million young people unemployed, the only proposals the Prime Minister can come up with are threatening to remove access to housing benefit for those aged 16 to 24, and trying to prevent school leavers from claiming benefits straight away. Surely if we can see it, he can see it: this is not the answer, whereas providing jobs and opportunities for our young people is the answer. The number of young people out of work for over a year has gone up 156%. Why did the Government scrap the future jobs fund immediately after they came to power without a viable alternative in place? That decision was driven purely by ideology.
	I invite the Prime Minister to my constituency to see the effects of his Government’s economic incompetence on my constituents and, in particular, on those young people denied employment opportunities. Then again, I am not sure whether that would be a good idea. Labour’s five-point plan means job creation and a redistribution of wealth from those who want more to those who need more. We need to repeat Labour’s bank bonus tax and invest in real jobs and in real jobs guarantees.

Graeme Morrice: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), although I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) also rose when you called me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I hope this does not mean that I will get a speech in stereo; I hope his hon. Friend will wait until I call him before he speaks.

Graeme Morrice: A good point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that my hon. Friend might repeat some of my points, as we Labour Members have robust arguments in support of the bank bonus tax in new clause 13, to which I am delighted to lend my support this evening.
	Given the dramatic events at Barclays over the past few days, it is particularly apposite to be discussing the contribution of the banks to the well-being of our economy and how to deal with the excessive bonus culture in the financial services sector. Our position on this issue has been clear and consistent: bonuses should be exceptional payments paid for exceptional performance. Far too many highly paid bankers, however, continue to be paid astronomical bonuses, often seemingly with little or no connection to meeting their performance targets. While such excessive and unjustifiable bonuses remain, the case for a tax on bank bonuses is strong and undoubtedly popular with the public. The LIBOR scandal at Barclays will cause the banks’ reputation to plummet to a new low. Few would have believed that the public’s opinion of them could get any worse, but they manage to keep coming up with inventive new ways of further undermining the trust of their customers and the wider population.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the popularity of a tax on bank bonuses with the public, but the tax should not just be popular; it should also work. Nothing that Government have done has remotely worked, and those failures—including their failure in regard to bank lending—are the real reason why this is the right thing to do.

Graeme Morrice: I agree, and I shall deal with that aspect of bank lending in due course. It is vital for people’s trust in British banks to be restored as quickly as possible.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not one of the tragedies the fact that the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the financial services sector—many thousands of them in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend—are being let down by those who are receiving the big bonuses? I was shocked and horrified by what is being done in their name, because they are often the victims of the criticism and the policies in the banks which have led to today’s debate.

Graeme Morrice: I agree. Many of my constituents who work in the banking and financial services sector contact me regularly to express concern about what their employers are doing.

Bob Stewart: The problem with the banks seems to be that they will not lend because they are frightened, and they are frightened because they must have money themselves. Perhaps we should think about the connection between bonuses and the way in which banks lend to small businesses, and perhaps a decent bonus could then be given to a bank that is run by someone who helps the economy by lending.

Graeme Morrice: That is a valid point, with which I shall deal shortly.
	The strength of the balance sheets and the corporate reputation of our banks are crucial building blocks enabling us to restore confidence in the economy and return to growth. However, I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s limited parliamentary inquiry into what happened at Barclays will not command the confidence of the public, or be regarded as an adequate response to the catalogue of failings and scandals that have befallen our banks in recent years.
	The full public inquiry into banking standards that has been called for by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would be the most effective way of demonstrating to the public that both politicians and those in the industry are serious about ending unacceptable practices and taking steps to restore faith in our banking system. A repeat of the bank bonus tax would help to reassure the public that bankers are making amends for their part in our current economic woes by helping young people to return to work and enabling new homes to be built.
	I know that many Government Members believe that the bankers have been let off lightly in regard to bonuses and paying their fair share towards recovery. Senior Government figures have talked tough on bank bonuses, but have stopped short of taking meaningful action. Indeed, rather than ensuring that bankers made a bigger contribution, the Chancellor gave them a massive tax cut in the Budget, as a result of which the richest bankers will pay millions less in tax from next April. As Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the High Pay Commission, said when the new 45p rate was announced:
	“This tax cut for bankers will be galling for the millions of pensioners who will see their bills go up because of this Budget.”
	As well as the reduction in the personal tax paid by bankers, the Chancellor’s cuts in corporation tax mean the banks received a tax cut last year and will do so again in future years. Despite the Chancellor’s slight increase in the rate of the bank levy in January this year and 2013, the Government’s failure to repeat the bank bonus tax leaves the banks considerably better off, while our constituents face cuts in tax credits, higher living costs and a squeeze on millions of pensions.
	At the same time, small businesses across the UK continue to struggle to access the lending they desperately need to grow and create jobs, with lending to SMEs having fallen by more than £9.5 billion last year.

Charlie Elphicke: Why then make it harder for banks to lend by taking more money out of them through the Opposition’s proposal?

Graeme Morrice: That may be the hon. Gentleman’s opinion, but I reiterate the point that, because of the Government’s policies of the past two years, the official figures show that banks lent £9.5 billion less to SMEs last year than in the previous year, so there is a problem now.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is right about the poor state of bank lending, but the reality is that the banks are not lending because they have no confidence; they have no confidence in this Government because they have pushed us back into a double-dip recession. That is the reality, and that is why action is needed. That is why this
	Labour proposal is the right way forward to kick-start the economy and start to solve the problem of youth unemployment.

Graeme Morrice: I agree. I am sure that many Members have been contacted by SMEs based in their constituencies who are desperate because they cannot attract as much lending from the banks and other financial institutions as they enjoyed a number of years ago. While many are critical of the lending banks, they are also critical of Government policy. Members on the Government Benches may not agree with that, but it is the reality, and that is why people are approaching us with these complaints and concerns.
	The continued failure on lending is making a mockery of the Chancellor’s promise to link the pay of the chief executives of each bank with performance against SME lending targets, but there is now another chance for Members on the Government Benches to demonstrate to their constituents that they are genuine about making bankers pay their fair share. Labour’s bank bonus tax raised about £3.5 billion, as confirmed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, even on a cautious estimate, we believe that this year alone it could raise at least £2 billion, over and above what is already in place. The Government could use those funds to introduce the real jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed, potentially helping 100,000 into work. It could also be used to build thousands of much-needed new affordable homes.
	In conclusion, by supporting the new clause hon. Members can show that we are serious about holding bankers to account and ensuring that they pay their fair share, while also raising additional funds to address the people’s priorities—youth jobs and affordable homes—and make a real contribution to turning around our ailing economy.

Rushanara Ali: I support the new clause because today more than 1 million of our young people—one in five of them—have no job. That is not because they are not trying to find work and it is not because they are not working hard to get experience and skills; it is because in this flagging economy—in this double-dip recession created by this Government’s failed economic policies—the jobs just are not there. Yet, at the same time, we see the banks paying out huge bonuses to some of those responsible for the economic mess we are in. Britain is now bottom of the pile for social mobility, and that is due to this Government’s failures. The top 1% of our society now control a greater share of the national income than at any time since the 1930s. Despite these crippling inequalities, this Government’s priority has been to give tax breaks to millionaires while building their austerity programme on the backs of some of the poorest in this country.
	The current labour market is a bleak place. The hardest hit by unemployment remain women and older people, who face discrimination in the labour market, and of course young people. Long-term unemployment is at its highest since 1996. As my hon. Friends have already said, youth unemployment has increased by more than 100% in the past year. That is a travesty, because it means
	that we have failed to help young people live up to their ambitions and find the jobs they want—or, indeed, find any jobs at all. It also means that a great wealth of talent and productivity is being lost. That is a travesty, too, and one this Government should be ashamed of. According to a recent Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations report, that will cost the Treasury £4.8 billion this year and it will cost the economy £10.7 billion in lost output. I support the new clause because the Government’s plans are driving a wedge through our society, leaving too many people behind.
	Social mobility in this country has ground to a halt, and as I represent one of the most deprived areas of London, I see that all too clearly; it has always been hard, but now we are moving backwards. Every week, I meet young people in my constituency who are losing out. My area has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment, at more than 8%. The loss of the education maintenance allowance is making it harder for these young people to stay on in school. The lack of jobs makes it seem like the rising cost of university or education is just not worth it. Georgia Rowe, a student at one of the colleges in Tower Hamlets, recently said to me:
	“I thought about university but it doesn’t guarantee a better job. You might as well not be in debt.”
	This is the generation of young people who are being left behind.
	That is why Labour has proposed the real jobs guarantee to help give our young people a chance, as we know the scarring effects that long periods of unemployment can have. People need work experience, training and to learn the skills that make them more employable in today’s difficult labour market. I know what a massive difference it can make to a young person’s chances if they get a little experience. Programmes such as Job Ready, which is hosted by Futureversity in my constituency, and Skillsmatch, and those of the Adab Trust and City Gateway, along with access to a job, can help people overcome the psychological barriers to economic opportunity, and build ambition and confidence. They connect business and young people, opening up new opportunities and partnerships, but those programmes are all struggling without adequate support.
	The Work Foundation has rightly called the Government’s approach to youth unemployment “piecemeal” and “fragmented”. The Government’s headline plan to get young people back into work through the Work programme and youth contract is failing. They have managed to get only about a third of those on the programme into jobs, and in this age of austerity that is not good enough. Recent figures in my constituency showed that at least 15 people were chasing every job vacancy. The Government should be looking for real ways to help solve these problems and not continuing to kill off jobs and growth prospects through their draconian austerity measures.
	Young people in my constituency can see the opportunities a short distance away in Canary Wharf and the City of London. They want to know how to get jobs there. They see bankers in the city getting tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses while unemployment soars. This is what happens when social mobility grinds to a halt. Those kids in my constituency, who are as talented and aspirational as any others, simply do not
	have the same opportunities, so it does not seem like such a bad idea to ask those who have so much to pay a little more.
	When I consider the behaviour of the banks and some of their employees, I do not always see shining examples of socially responsible companies. The finance sector is a vital part of our economy and many companies and their staff behave responsibly, but too many of the highest paid behave the worst, as we have seen with the Barclays bank scandal. Such behaviour is at best reprehensible and at worst criminal and requires inquiries and investigations as soon as possible, yet those people are some of the highest paid in the country. Bob Diamond earned 600 times more than the average income in my constituency, so a tax on the excessive bonuses received by people such as him is only too fair. But instead the Government are reducing the tax paid by banks, with the bank levy raising just over half as much in 2011-12 as Labour’s bank bonus tax would have raised this year.

Mark Lazarowicz: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that Bob Diamond’s bonus and salary were 600 times the average wage in her constituency and want to highlight that point. Most of us understand that top bankers will probably be paid a lot more than most people in the country under any system, but such a discrepancy is obscene. That is what people find so disgusting and what they want to see tackled.

Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and hope that the Government are listening. They must understand how serious the matter is and the deep resentment and anger that is felt in constituencies such as mine. The borough that contains my constituency is also the borough in which Canary Wharf is based and the injustice of some of the behaviour and the worst abuses in the banking sector must be addressed. The Government must take responsibility.

Bob Stewart: It is very decent of the hon. Lady to give way. When she refers to figures that are 600 times a normal wage or to huge bonuses, at least there is compensation. If those sums are declared, quite a lot—perhaps 40%—will come back to HMRC, which we could then redistribute. It is better that way than if it is hidden offshore.

Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps look at the tax records of Barclays bank, as he will find that it has not paid the taxation that it should have paid. His Government should do more to ensure that the taxes that should be paid are paid. I also think that his Government has a poverty of ambition in not accepting our amendment to make a massive difference to unemployment in constituencies such as mine. I urge the Government to think hard about the impact on the 1 million young people—a sizable number of whom are in my constituency—and consider what could be done to address the problem rather than trying to defend bankers’ bonuses.

Bob Stewart: I am not trying to defend them.

Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman’s party is.

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. The notion of very high bankers’ bonuses is nothing new, of course, as it
	has been going on for an awfully long time. Her party was in office for 13 years. Could she explain exactly what it did about that?

Rushanara Ali: After the financial crisis, as part of the deal, my party introduced the bankers’ bonus tax and we raised £3.5 billion that went towards the attempt to get people back into work that was so successful in constituencies such as mine. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s party to consider what works, and that did work. Instead of being partisan and ideological, his party should look at what works and enforce it. The people of this country will not forgive his Government for not acting, for creating a double-dip recession and for leaving so many people out of work. It is a disgrace and he should apologise, with his party, for presiding over two years of being in government in which they have caused a double-dip recession and much more unemployment. That is what his party should be focused on and addressing, not trying to score party political points. You are in government. Do something.

Mel Stride: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Has the hon. Lady given way or has she concluded?

Rushanara Ali: I have given way.

Dawn Primarolo: Good. May I remind everybody that I am not in government.

Mel Stride: It is a great shame that you are not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Will the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), by the same token, apologise for the doubling of unemployment under the previous Government?

Rushanara Ali: When my party was in government, we cut unemployment. We got a million young people into work. After the financial crisis, when unemployment started to increase, we did something about it. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s Government to do something about unemployment, instead of looking backwards. Do something about the unemployment rate which is causing so much damage to our country, instead of doing what his party did when it was in power in the 1980s, which was to go around telling people that unemployment was a price worth paying.
	The hon. Gentleman’s party is demonstrating that the nasty party is back with a vengeance. That is devastating for people in constituencies such as mine. They do not want to see the nastiness of the party. They want jobs. I suggest that his party focuses on creating jobs and growth. That is what people want.

Gordon Birtwistle: rose —

Rushanara Ali: I should like to conclude my speech. I have given way enough, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to hear more about the issues affecting our country and my constituents—[Interruption.] I give way.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. Would she concur with the noble Lord Mandelson when he said that the Labour party was intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich?

Rushanara Ali: The noble Lord Mandelson said that those people should pay taxes, and when my party was in power we brought unemployment down. That is what I urge the hon. Gentleman’s party to act on. I urge the Government, instead of defending bankers’ bonuses, to think about the 3 million people who are out of work. That is the responsibility of his party and his Government. He should talk to them about solving the current problems, instead of looking backwards.

Mark Durkan: When we are talking about banksters—to use a term that was coined as far back as 1932 by an Irish-American radio priest—we are talking not just about people who are filthy rich, but about people who are filthy rich by foul means. They have engaged in rackets, they get paid in packets. Why do they deserve a cut in their taxes?

Rushanara Ali: They do not deserve a cut in taxes. I hope the Government will take serious action, otherwise the public, who already feel this way, will rightly believe that this Government are not for them but for the vested interests and the millionaires who make so much money and are not willing to pay their dues or to make the appropriate contribution. I am sure the Government do not want to be on the side of people who are milking the system and making so much money and not making the appropriate contribution.
	I call on the Government to pay attention, to listen not just to my party, but to the millions of young people who want a job and an opportunity to make a contribution to this country. We have a plan that could help get them get into real work and would reward those who work hard—a plan that is costed and paid for by asking some of the wealthiest in our society to contribute just a little more. With the economy back in a double-dip recession and economic confidence so low that investment growth has virtually ground to a halt, job opportunities for these young people desperate to find work will not appear without help. I hope the Government will see sense and give young people in Britain the much-needed support that they deserve, by supporting the new clause.

Alison McGovern: I would like to begin my remarks on new clause 13 by agreeing with so much of what has been said today by Opposition colleagues. I want briefly to take the House back a couple of years to 2010, when I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on young people and unemployment, the first such debate I led in the House. For me, it could not have been on a more important subject than the position of young people in the labour market in my constituency. I do not wish to put myself forward as some kind of Cassandra or some awful foreseer of what has come about, but I warned the Minister then that the swift withdrawal of some of the more successful things the Labour Government had been doing to tackle young people’s unemployment would lead to more young people being on the dole. Sadly, that is what has happened. In fact, two years later the ONS tells us that an extra 65,000 16 to 24-year-olds are now without work. That is not just a waste of talent and funds, but a moral shame.
	I want to say a few words on that subject and why new clause 13 is so important to young people facing that difficult situation. The Government have had two years to tackle the problem, yet all of us here have to admit that the problem is getting worse, not better, and that action is needed more today than it was in 2010. The Government would not listen then; I beg them to listen now.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend has a proud record, before and since reaching this place, of advocating for young people and employment. She is quite right to draw attention to the Government’s record. We should remember that we saw the same thing happen in the ’90s. The Government are going back to exactly the same failed policies of the ’90s. The difference between Government and Opposition Members is that when we were in government we looked after unemployment. We kept unemployment, repossessions and business failures low. Under this lot they have gone up and we are seeing the problems for young people, which is why we need the action we are debating right now.

Alison McGovern: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour in Merseyside for his intervention. He is quite right. The return to things such as the youth training scheme has been one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Government’s work in this area.

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady makes the important point that youth unemployment is deeply regrettable and has been rising recently, but she skips over the fact that youth unemployment has been rising since 2004, so most of the period of that rise actually occurred on her watch when the kinds of policies she is advocating were clearly not working.

Alison McGovern: The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about apportioning blame, because although we have seen an extreme rise in youth unemployment over the past couple of years because of the recession—I will move on to the problem of demand in the economy later—under the Labour Government there was successful action to prevent levels of youth unemployment from rising to those we saw in the ’90s. If he wishes to, we can talk at length in the Chamber on another occasion about some of the structural reasons for young people’s unemployment, such as how skills are transferred in different ways, how small businesses recruit differently, which hits younger people more than it does those with experience in the economy, and why those patterns were starting to emerge from 2005. However, in new clause 13 we are trying to establish the urgency of getting money from a particular source and prioritising the needs of young people in my constituency and in his.
	The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has done an important piece of work to calculate the cost to the Exchequer of young people being out of work, and, although I hope that Treasury Ministers will have already heard the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) cited, I want to alight on this one. If youth unemployment continues at current rates, by 2022 the cost to the Exchequer and to the economy in lost output is estimated to be £28 billion—on top of the human and social costs. That is a huge figure, and we as a country cannot afford to see this crisis continue.
	I shall take a few moments, however, to consider not only the financial cost, huge and important though that is, but the impact of the crisis on individuals, on their pride and on their self-worth. I mentioned earlier the Government’s own research, carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions, into the future jobs fund, and if Ministers have not read it they would do well to do so. The research, first, considered the impact on young people who took part in the future jobs fund programme, and it is a shame that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has left his place, because I wanted to ask him—I tried to intervene on him to do so—whether he had met, spoken to or asked the opinion of any young person who took part in the future jobs fund.
	Just in case hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read the research, however, I shall quote a young person and how they were feeling prior to the introduction of the future jobs fund. They said that they were
	“feeling a bit low. I was about four and half, five months, unemployed and I thought ‘oh no, this isn’t good’. Most employers I spoke to, it was like if you’ve been unemployed for more than 2 months, it really puts people off. I knew how to do a job; it’s just the fact that I’d been unemployed for nearly 5 months. Almost half a year, which was quite embarrassing really. I know there was nothing out there, but it was still kind of embarrassing.”
	Despite this person realising that aggregate demand and low job vacancy numbers had caused their problem, they blamed themselves, so I ask hon. Members to consider the impact of low self-esteem and poor mental health on the extra 65,000 young people who have become unemployed since 2010.
	The research, secondly, asked young people how they felt about their work once they had taken part in a future jobs fund employment placement, and to me the following quotation says it all. On the question of what the most important gain was, one person said:
	“Trust in my determination. Self belief, the belief from my employer that I am able to succeed”.
	What more important thing could anybody have for success in life than self-belief? When people are left to languish on the dole, such self-esteem is undermined every single day.

James Gray: I strongly admire the sincerity of the hon. Lady’s compassion for those people, but I am not sure that reading out two or three vox pops necessarily adds to the intellectual coherence and probity of the argument. She admitted a moment ago that youth unemployment was dangerously high during the Labour years. It remains very high, and we are very worried about that, but what does she actually propose we should do about it?

Alison McGovern: I am not sure I know where to start. I am reading out the testimony of young people who have been unemployed. That is not some kind of media vox pop; it is an example of real people who have been affected by the phenomena that we have been talking about, and we should listen to them. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to what I have to say, let him listen to young people in my constituency and in his own, and to how they feel about being thrown on the scrapheap.
	I shall briefly discuss bankers’ bonuses, and why the measure before us is an entirely appropriate one to take in order to fund for young people employment that will
	stand them in good stead for the rest of their careers. Profit-making banks have had a reduction in corporation tax, but I shall not go over the reasons why the tax in question is an appropriate one to levy on their payroll. We have to face the fact that in the City of London we have seen behaviour that cannot be tolerated. For the sake of the future of our young people, what is needed now is some sort of restorative justice to rebalance people’s ability to make a good life for themselves. Young people in this country are facing a more difficult labour market than they have for many years. I beg the Government to listen and take some action now.

Dawn Primarolo: I call Grahame M. Morris.

Grahame Morris: Thank you for the differentiation, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be in such august company as that of my hon. and good Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice)—

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen are trying to confuse me, because now they are sitting next to each other—but only one has the Floor.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Livingston, and indeed the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who served on the Public Bill Committee. He is not in his place at the moment, but I found his contribution interesting, as always.
	I support new clause 13, tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, which would introduce a bankers bonus tax to fund a job guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months. History will judge this Budget as chaotic. It has been a Budget of U-turns—on pasties, on caravans, on skips and on charities. It should be remembered as a Budget for “millionaires row”—admittedly, that is a little sparse at the moment—but I hope it will not be remembered as the Budget that let the greedy bankers off the hook. Tonight, I want to put on the record the impact on the north-east.
	The north-east requires an alternative vision for economic confidence, growth and jobs. The proposals in new clause 13 of a guaranteed paid job for people who have been out of work for 12 months, as suggested by the Institute of Public Policy Research North, would boost the process of regeneration that is so badly needed in my region. According to economists at IPPR North, coalition spending cuts have worsened the impact on our region’s economy and added to unemployment—especially youth unemployment—in the north-east. Well over 32,000 public sector jobs have been cut. I remind the House that unemployment in my region stands at 11.3%; 145,000 people are out of work. The private sector-led recovery that was promised has clearly not materialised in my region, at least, and a recent report from Northern TUC shows declining employment in the private sector.
	In the Public Bill Committee, I gave some examples of the private sector haemorrhaging jobs in my constituency, and I do not propose to repeat that tonight. The problem
	we face—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, raised this point—is that money is being sucked out of the region through public spending cuts, benefit cuts and the slashing of regeneration and infrastructure projects, worsening the economic problems. The Government, through their policies, are squeezing out demand from the regional and national economies. That is counter-productive, as it pushes up both the benefits bill and Government borrowing.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend that there is no alternative, but the Opposition recognise that politics is about priorities and making choices. Sadly, the Chancellor has chosen to give a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires, while more and more people in my area are losing their jobs and young people in particular have little prospect of finding paid employment. He has also chosen to keep VAT, a deeply regressive tax that hurts the poor, at 20%.
	IPPR North has said that business confidence is failing. The lack of confidence among employers has created a hire freeze across the north that looks likely to get worse. The unwillingness of employers to take on permanent staff only increases economic insecurity for ordinary households. Where vacancies do exist, they are often for low paid and insecure work. Given that more than 1 million young people are out of work, we need real action from the Government to stop the next generation from wasting away on unemployment benefits. That is where the real jobs guarantee comes in. We need to offer a jobs guarantee, especially to young people, to stimulate the economy and offer personal hope to each individual.

Richard Fuller: General Government expenditure accounts for 50% of the economy, our debts are at record levels and we have the highest deficits. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the answer to debt, deficit and the Government’s massive share of the economy is for the Government to do more or to do less?

Grahame Morris: I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he had sat through the whole debate, because those points have been raised. It is beholden on the Government to do more, not less; we have to learn from the lessons of history. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 13.

Mark Lazarowicz: I want to say a few words in support of a bank bonus tax. I emphasise that I am supporting that not to bash the bankers, but to end the unacceptable face of banking in the form of an excessive bonus culture that is still far too widespread.
	As I said earlier, the vast majority of people who work in financial services certainly do not get vast bonuses; many thousands of people in my constituency work hard behind bank counters or in bank offices serving customers, and they are often on modest incomes. Many have paid with changes in working conditions, while others have paid with their jobs, when redundancies flowed from the financial crisis caused by the irresponsibility of senior executives. We are not targeting those people; we want to do something about the small minority who are still getting excessive rewards.
	A study published at the end of June showed that average pay for chief executives at 15 leading banks in the US and Europe increased by 12% over the last financial year. That may be less than the 36% increase in the previous year, but whatever the increase—it is about 50% when we add both increases—it is wildly out of line with falls in profits and share prices that have frequently characterised the sector. That is not performance-related pay in any sense that most people would understand and it is certainly not a performance that would justify what is effectively a further tax cut on top of a tax cut for the highest paid.
	A tax targeted on bank bonuses is necessary because the existing attempts to curb the bonus culture have so obviously failed. That is the key point. The issue is not about saying that people should not be very well paid at the top of banks and financial institutions, but we want to get away from a position in which sums wildly in excess of anything that could be said to be deserved are paid as a matter of course. None of the steps taken so far has changed that culture, even in an era of financial crisis among the banks and beyond.
	The second reason why we want a bank bonus tax is that it would raise money for some valuable purposes. The issue of jobs for young people affects all our constituencies. My constituency normally comes in the middle range of unemployment across the UK, and we have seen a substantial increase in youth unemployment. I certainly want that issue to be tackled in my constituency.
	We are also saying that the bank bonus tax would be used to provide affordable housing. That, of course, would bring two benefits. First, it would bring more housing into the sector. Constituencies such as mine have to some extent, although on a lesser scale, experienced the same phenomenon as happened in London, where high rates of pay in certain sectors such as financial services have pushed up house prices and made it harder for people on lower incomes to get affordable housing, so this proposal would be important for those people as well. Of course, building affordable housing and new homes also gives a boost to the economy through providing new jobs in the construction sector and helps people who have been out of work because of the collapse of that sector in many parts of the country.
	Our proposal of a bank bonus tax would not only tackle the excessive bonus culture but provide jobs for our young people and affordable homes, giving a boost to the construction sector. I therefore hope that the House will support it.

Mark Hoban: We have heard a series of slightly strange speeches by Labour Members. We have become accustomed to their belief that they left us a golden economic legacy, but the reality is that when they left office unemployment was higher than when they came into office. They seem to believe that the problems of youth unemployment started under this Government. At least the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has the good sense to recognise that it is a long-standing and deep-seated issue and that its growth started under the previous Government.
	Labour Members seem to forget that when they left office the deficit was out of control. We have tackled that and reduced the structural deficit by a quarter.

Bill Esterson: Youth unemployment is higher than when Labour left office, unemployment generally is higher than when Labour left office, and the economy was growing when Labour left office whereas now we are back in recession. Will the Minister confirm all three of those facts?

Mark Hoban: The challenge that we face is dealing with the economic legacy left by Labour, with the huge boom in financial services and the huge bust that followed.
	We have heard Labour Members’ story that they presided over a golden age in the financial services sector. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) could not bring herself to admit that the scandal over LIBOR fixing took place between 2005 and 2008 or that the interest rate mis-selling that affected so many small businesses took place in the same period leading up to the financial crisis.
	Labour Members deplore the bonus culture, but let us not forget that when they were in government, bonuses were paid out in the year that they were earned and paid out in cash. That was the hallmark of the age of irresponsibility that characterised their time in office. This Government are taking action to tackle the bonus culture. This Government have introduced rules to ensure that bonuses are not paid out in the year they are earned but spread over a three-year period, that they are not paid out in cash but in shares, and, crucially, that they can be clawed back where there have been problems in the business or where there has been wrongdoing. This Government have tackled the bonus culture in the UK whereas the previous Government let it run riot, and we have seen the financial consequences of their so doing.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose —

Mark Hoban: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will apologise for the approach that his party’s Government took towards the bonus culture.

Mark Lazarowicz: The bank bonus tax was first introduced by the previous Government. In fact, I think that our Government should have done much more about the bonus culture in the banks in the past and was wrong not to do so. However, will the Minister at least accept that at no stage did his Government suggest any action whatsoever to tackle the bonus culture? He should not suggest that the responsibility lies only with Labour but accept his share of the responsibility as well.

Mark Hoban: We have taken action to tackle the bonus culture by ensuring that the interests of shareholders and management are aligned and that where there is wrongdoing bonuses can be clawed back. That is a significant change that has happened since this Government came to office. In the same way that we are remedying the regulatory failures left behind by the previous Government, particularly by the shadow Chancellor, the inquiry set up into the fixing of LIBOR will ensure that in future LIBOR is regulated to fill the hole in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and ensure that there are criminal penalties for manipulating LIBOR—again, filling the hole left by the shadow Chancellor when he designed the regulatory system.

Mark Durkan: The Minister refers to what the Government have done since coming to office. What did the then Opposition suggest in the previous two Parliaments
	by way of concrete proposals on regulation or bonus culture or amendments to any of the flawed measures that the previous Government introduced?

Mark Hoban: When the previous Government brought forward the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, we voted against the decision to transfer the supervision of the banks from the Bank of England to the FSA. We are putting right that failure by the previous Government. We criticised the financial services reforms brought forward by the previous Government in the aftermath of the financial crisis. We said that they were tinkering around the edges and did not address the fundamental problems at the heart of regulation. The work that we did in opposition laid the foundations for a much tougher, more intrusive and more interventionist regulatory regime to tackle the problems left by the previous Government.

Ronnie Campbell: rose —

Mark Hoban: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; otherwise he might explode.

Ronnie Campbell: When the Minister talks about the economic mess, does he mean the £600 billion that the Labour Government had to give to the banks to bail them out and keep them afloat?

Mark Hoban: The UK economy has suffered hugely as a consequence of the financial crisis. It has lost £140 billion in growth. We have to tackle the causes of that failure, as well as tackling the deficit that the previous Government left behind. That is what we are doing through the Financial Services Bill, which is passing through Parliament at the moment.

John Hemming: rose —

Mark Hoban: I will take one last intervention on this point, then I will move on to the substance of the debate.

John Hemming: In December 2008, the then Chancellor said:
	“The measures that I announced in October have stabilised the banking system, and inter-bank lending rates have fallen. The three-month LIBOR rate halved to just over 3 per cent. this week.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1213.]
	Does the Minister think that that was a fantasy, like much of what the Opposition propose?

Mark Hoban: The last Prime Minister had a problem recognising his responsibility for the problems that befell the economy.
	One way in which we have sought to get the balance right in the taxation of businesses is by introducing the bank levy. We took that decision in opposition. We thought that it was right to ensure that banks paid their fair share towards dealing with the risks that they pose to the economy. The measure was opposed by the previous Government. They did not want to introduce a bank levy on a unilateral basis. We had the courage to make that decision and to ensure that banks pay their fair share.
	The bank levy is a tax on the balance sheets of banking groups and building societies. It complements the wider regulatory reforms that are aimed at improving financial stability, such as the higher capital and liquidity standards. It thereby ensures that the banking sector makes a fair and substantial contribution that reflects the risks that it poses to the financial system and the wider economy. The levy is also intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models.
	From the outset, the Government have been clear that we intend the levy to raise at least £2.5 billion each year. The Opposition should get their facts right. They have trotted out the gross figure that was raised by the bank payroll tax. They must bear in mind that the tax also reduced pay-as-you-earn and national insurance receipts. That is why the actual yield of the bank payroll tax was only £2.3 billion. Our levy will therefore raise more, year after year, than was raised by their one-off bank payroll tax.
	The target yield for the levy was set out in the Government’s first Budget. We also announced our intention to make significant cuts to the main rate of corporation tax. Let me deal with another red herring from the Opposition. We were clear at that time, as we are now, that the bank levy yield will far outweigh the benefits that banks will receive from the corporation tax changes. Other sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but banks will not benefit because of the bank levy. In the 2011 and 2012 Budgets, the Chancellor has gone further and announced two more cuts in the main rate of corporation tax. It now stands at 24%. The increase in the bank levy announced in the Budget offsets the benefit of those additional cuts to maintain the incentives on banks to move towards less risky funding.
	New clause 13, tabled by the shadow Chancellor, is, in the words of Yogi Berra, the great American baseball coach,
	“déjà vu all over again”.
	This is at least the fifth time in this Parliament and the second time in the passage of the Finance Bill that we have debated the bank payroll tax. We have heard no new arguments from the Opposition and nothing to persuade us to vote for it.
	Yet again, we have to point out to the Labour party that such a tax would be counter-productive and unnecessary. The bank payroll tax was introduced as a one-off interim measure in the last Parliament ahead of regulatory reforms and changes to remuneration practice and corporate governance. The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—somebody the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North should listen to and learn from—said that it could not be repeated. He pointed out that it was a temporary measure until bank remuneration practices were changed, and we have changed those practices.
	The new clause calls for the proceeds of the tax to be used to help employment, but I should take some time to remind the House of the measures that we are already taking to do that. We have introduced the youth contract and are investing £1 billion over the next three years in supporting half a million young people into employment and educational opportunities. We will provide
	160,000 wage incentives worth up to £2,275 each to employers who recruit an 18 to 24-year-old through the Work programme. There will be an extra quarter of a million voluntary work experience or sector work academy places over the next three years and a further 20,000 incentive payments to encourage employers to take on young apprentices, taking the total to 40,000.
	We are also providing additional support through Jobcentre Plus and the opportunity for people to be referred for a careers interview with the national careers service. We are already providing more apprenticeship places than any previous Government, with a record 457,000 apprenticeships delivered in 2010-11 and a commitment to delivering 1.2 million over the entire spending review period. That is a quarter of a million more than the previous Government’s commitment.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North says that the bank payroll tax should be used to help youth employment, but let us consider the number of ways the Labour party has already announced it would be used. The Leader of the Opposition was asked where the money would come from to reverse the increase in VAT, and he said:
	“I said for example we should have a higher bank levy.”
	It was also suggested that it be used to pay for higher capital spending of about £7.5 billion in 2010, which would have required £6 billion from the bank levy. The Leader of the Opposition said that reversing child benefit changes could be afforded by using the bank payroll tax—yet another use for it.
	The bank payroll tax is the tax that continues to give, the tax that the Opposition always turn to when they want to find a way of plugging the black hole in their figures. They used it to explain how they would reverse tax credit savings, spend more money on the regional growth fund, cut the deficit and turn empty shops into community centres. We have heard a remarkable number of ways in which something that the previous Government said was a one-off would be used to fill the black hole in Labour’s economic thinking.

Charlie Elphicke: How many times over have the Opposition spent that money so far?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right to ask me that question. About 15 times. Every time there is a tricky question, what is the answer? Let us reintroduce the one-off bank payroll tax. That demonstrates the emptiness at the heart of Labour’s economic policy. It has no concrete ideas to tackle what happened in the financial crisis or the economic problems that it left behind. The Opposition are reduced to trotting out the same stale arguments for the fifth time running, and I urge the House to reject them once again.

Catherine McKinnell: We have heard some passionate speeches from Labour Members, but I am concerned about the lack of contributions from Government Members. Only one, the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), contributed in the entire debate. He put forward some interesting views and theories, and I commend him for engaging in the debate, because there is little of more importance right now than youth unemployment.
	The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech, however, by hailing a return to the 1980s. I do not know about other Opposition Members, but it sent a shudder of
	fear through me, because although some people had the time of their lives in the 1980s—we have fond images of the City, the champagne flowing, the pinstripe suits and the brick-sized mobile phones—for many the 1980s were not pleasant or a time of growth but devastating, particularly for youth unemployment. Parts of the UK, including my region of the north-east, other English regions, Scotland and Wales, suffered dreadful decimation of their traditional manufacturing industries, and in many ways are still paying the price. We risk repeating that fate today, which is why we are proposing to impose a bank payroll tax on the very institutions that played a large part in causing the international financial crisis that led first to the recession and then to today’s double-dip recession.

Charlie Elphicke: rose —

Catherine McKinnell: I give way to the only Conservative Member to contribute to today’s debate.

Charlie Elphicke: How do the Opposition justify spending this money 15 times over?

Catherine McKinnell: We have—

David Evennett: No answer.

Catherine McKinnell: No, we have clear plans: we would like to spend the bank payroll tax on creating youth jobs. I would have thought that Government Members would have grasped that opportunity, given that short-term unemployment is up 112% and long-term unemployment is up 156%. I would have thought that Conservative Members would be shouting out for any solution to bring those figures down.
	Or are Government Members happy to see another generation of young people thrown on to the scrap heap with no opportunities and no way out? The future jobs fund gave opportunities to young people. It was heralded by the Prime Minister as a good scheme and promises were made not to scrap it, but as soon as the Government took office it was put in the bin. And we have seen little put in its place: the work experience scheme, for which we waited a whole year, is producing very few results.
	For that reason, we are proposing a solution. On a cautious estimate, we believe that this year the bank bonus tax could raise at least £2 billion, which the Government could use to create thousands of affordable homes and introduce a real jobs guarantee for long-term unemployed young people. As part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, the real jobs guarantee would cost £600 million—a small price to pay for tackling the chronic youth unemployment about which Labour Members have spoken passionately this evening.
	Under the real jobs guarantee, the Government would pay full wages directly to businesses—again something I would have thought Government Members would have supported—and support businesses taking on new members of staff. It would cover 25 hours of work at the minimum wage—£4,000 per job—and in return the employer would cover the training requirements and the young people would be required to take the jobs made available. It would be a genuine contract and a real jobs guarantee.
	We cannot stand by and watch another generation of young people left to suffer the effects of this double-dip recession, which is why we propose this bank bonus tax as a real solution and why I urge hon. Members to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be a read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 241, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 208
	 — 
	Settled excluded property: effect of certain arrangements

Amendments made: 5,page120,line19, at end insert—
	‘() in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert “or,
	(d) in a case where paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of section 74A(1) are satisfied—
	(i) it is a reversionary interest, in the relevant settled property, to which the individual is beneficially entitled, and
	(ii) the individual has or is able to acquire (directly or indirectly) another interest in that relevant settled property.
	Terms used in paragraph (d) have the same meaning as in section 74A.”.’.
	Amendment 6,page120,line23, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 121 and insert—
	“(3D) Where paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 74A(1) are satisfied, subsection (3)(a) above does not apply at the time they are first satisfied or any later time to make the relevant settled property (within the meaning of section 74A) excluded property.”.’.
	Amendment 7,page121,line32, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 122 and insert—
	74A Arrangements involving acquisition of interest in settled property etc
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) one or more persons enter into arrangements,
	(b) in the course of the arrangements—
	(i) an individual (“the individual”) domiciled in the United Kingdom acquires or becomes able to acquire (directly or indirectly) an interest in property comprised in a settlement (“the relevant settled property”), and
	(ii) consideration in money or money’s worth is given by one or more of the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) (whether or not in connection with the acquisition of that interest or the individual becoming able to acquire it),
	(c) there is a relevant reduction in the value of the individual’s estate, and
	(d) condition A or condition B is met.
	(2) Condition A is that—
	(a) the settlor was not domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time the settlement was made, and
	(b) the relevant settled property is situated outside the United Kingdom at any time during the course of the arrangements.
	(3) Condition B is that—
	(a) the settlor was not an individual or a close company at the time the settlement was made, and
	(b) condition A is not met.’.
	Amendment 8,page123, leave out line 15 and insert—
	74C Interpretation of sections 74A and 74B
	(1) Subsections (2) to (4) have effect for the purposes of sections 74A and 74B.
	(2) An individual has an interest in property comprised in a settlement if—
	(a) the property, or any derived property, is or will or may become payable to, or applicable for the benefit of—
	(i) the individual,
	(ii) the individual’s spouse or civil partner, or
	(iii) a close company in relation to which the individual or the individual’s spouse or civil partner is a participator or a company which is a 51% subsidiary of such a close company,
	in any circumstances whatsoever, or
	(b) a person within sub-paragraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) enjoys a benefit deriving (directly or indirectly) from the property or any derived property.
	(3) A “relevant reduction” in the value of the individual’s estate occurs—
	(a) if and when the value of the individual’s estate first becomes less than it would have been in the absence of the arrangements, and
	(b) on each subsequent occasion when the value of that estate becomes less than it would have been in the absence of the arrangements and that difference in value is greater than the sum of any previous relevant reductions.
	(4) The amount of a relevant reduction is—
	(a) in the case of a reduction within subsection (3)(a), the difference between the value of the estate and its value in the absence of the arrangements, and
	(b) in the case of a reduction within subsection (3)(b), the amount by which the difference in value mentioned in that provision exceeds the sum of any previous relevant reductions.
	(5) In sections 74A and 74B and this section—
	“arrangements” includes any scheme, transaction or series of transactions, agreement or understanding, whether or not legally enforceable, and any associated operations;
	“close company” has the meaning given in section 102;
	“derived property”, in relation to any property, means—
	(a) income from that property,(b) property directly or indirectly representing—(c) income from property which is derived property by virtue of paragraph (b);
	“operation” includes an omission;
	“participator” has the meaning given in section 102;
	“the relevant time” means—
	(a) the time the relevant reduction occurs, or(b) if later, the time section 74A first applied;
	“51% subsidiary” has the same meaning as in the Corporation Tax Acts (see Chapter 3 of Part 24 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010).”.’.
	Amendment 9,page123, leave out lines to 17 to 22 and insert—
	‘(4A) Where—
	(a) a charge to tax arises under or by virtue of section 74A, or
	(b) in a case where paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 74A are satisfied, a charge to tax arises under section 64 or 65 in respect of the relevant settled property (within the meaning of section 74A),
	subsection (1) of this section has effect as if the persons listed in that subsection included the individual mentioned in section 74A(1)(b)(i).”.’.
	Amendment 10,page123,line23, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
	‘(5) The amendments made by this section are treated as having come into force on 20 June 2012 and have effect in relation to arrangements entered into on or after that day.’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Schedule 23
	 — 
	Air passenger duty

Amendment made: 4,page550,line41, leave out from ‘subsection’ to end of line 8 on page 551 and insert ‘(5) insert—
	“(5A) In relation to the carriage of a chargeable passenger on an aircraft to which section 30(4F) applies—
	(a) if the rate which (apart from this subsection) would apply is the rate set for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) or (b), the following rate is to apply instead—
	(i) the rate set by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the purposes of this paragraph, or
	(ii) if no rate is so set for the purposes of this paragraph, a rate equal to twice the rate set for the purposes of subsection (3)(b),
	(b) if the rate which (apart from this subsection) would apply is the rate set for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) or (b), the following rate is to apply instead—
	(i) the rate set by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the purposes of this paragraph, or
	(ii) if no rate is so set for the purposes of this paragraph, a rate equal to twice the rate set for the purposes of subsection (4)(b), and
	(c) if the rate which (apart from this subsection) would apply is the rate set for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) or (b), the following rate is to apply instead—
	(i) the rate set by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the purposes of this paragraph, or
	(ii) if no rate is so set for the purposes of this paragraph, a rate equal to twice the rate set for the purposes of subsection (5)(b).”.’.—(Mr Gauke.)
	Third Reading

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill proposes wide-ranging reforms of the tax system to reward work and promote growth. It supports business and growth, creates a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system, and builds on our commitment to improving the tax policy-making approach. However, it should be seen against the fiscal backdrop that we inherited.
	Before I discuss the Bill in more detail, let me remind Members of the challenges that we face. When we came to power, we were confronted by the largest peacetime deficit that the country had ever seen. One pound in every four was borrowed. Members will recall—[ Interruption. ]

Nigel Evans: Order. I am finding it rather difficult to hear the Minister.

David Gauke: Members will recall that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that the underlying damage to the economy and our challenge in repairing it was much greater than anyone had thought. It was therefore vital for us to take decisive action to restore the economic stability that was needed for recovery, and the Bill is part of that. In order to address the enormous
	debts that we inherited, confront Britain’s problems and get the economy moving, the Government have undertaken a sustained programme of deficit reduction.
	As I said earlier, the Bill supports business and growth. It implements milestones for the corporation tax roadmap, overhauls the controlled foreign companies regime, and introduces the patent box.

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend mentioned the controlled foreign companies regime. I support the Government’s efforts to ensure that all the tax that must be paid in the UK is paid in the UK, but, as he knows, concern has been expressed about the possibility that by introducing these rules the Government will inadvertently harm small developing countries which may lose tax revenue. I hope that they will ensure that there is no such side effect.

David Gauke: We debated that in the Committee of the whole House. The purpose of the CFC rules is to protect the UK tax base, as has always been the case, but the Government have a proud record of supporting developing countries, and we have a firm commitment to meeting our international obligations on that front. This country also has a proud record of building capacity in developing countries and improving their ability to collect taxes. In many developing countries, the UK has already made a substantial contribution, and we will continue to do so.
	Both the patent box and the CFC changes form part of the Government’s wider plans, which will help UK businesses to operate in an increasingly globalised world. I am sure all Members agree that those measures are essential to restore medium and long-term growth.
	Despite the challenging economic backdrop that the Government inherited, we have made significant progress. We have already introduced a further cut in the rate of corporation tax that will give us the lowest rate in the G7, the fourth lowest rate in the G20, and the lowest rate that this country has ever known. By next year, the Government will have cut corporation tax by 6%, helping to make the UK the most competitive country in the G20. According to the OBR’s assessment of the Budget, the reduction will increase the level of business investment by about 1% by the end of the forecast period. That is equivalent to an increase in the total amount of business investment of £3.4 billion between now and 2016.
	Many businesses have seen that we are, as promised, open for business. WPP and others have recently announced that they are considering returning to the UK, or that they wish to set up business here. I am delighted to say that Rowan and Lancashire have already come here, and once the CFC rules are in place in 2013, we shall be looking for more businesses to follow them. Following the Bill’s publication in March, one of the big four advisory firms announced that it was engaged in discussions with between 10 and 15 multinational companies that were considering locating substantial operations in Britain as a result of corporate tax reforms. The CBI has commented that these much-needed changes
	“will help make the UK a more attractive place for companies to invest, do business and create jobs.”
	The Government aim to create a tax system that is easy to understand and with which it is easy to comply, and the Bill contributes to that. It provides real help for families and business. It raises the personal allowance
	to £8,105—which, curiously, was not mentioned very frequently in Committee—and, combined with the further increase of £1,100 next year, will mean a tax cut for 24 million people and 2 million people being taken out of income tax altogether.

Sheila Gilmore: rose —

David Gauke: The hon. Lady made many contributions in Committee, although I am not sure that she ever dwelt on this particular issue, but I will give her the opportunity to do so now.

Sheila Gilmore: The Minister was waxing lyrical about simplification, and I was wondering whether he has reconsidered his view as to whether the proposed child benefit reform creates simplification or complication.

David Gauke: If we do not want people earning £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000 a year to be paying for benefits to go to much wealthier households, the alternative would be an extension of the tax credit system. That would have placed a much greater burden both on households and the Government. Of the available alternatives, we have gone for the simpler option.
	We are deferring the 3p per litre duty increase that was planned for August to January next year. Action by this Government to reduce the deficit and rebuild the economy is already benefiting businesses and families and keeping mortgage rates low. As hon. Members know, this Government have also had to make difficult decisions so we can tackle the deficit left to us by the previous Administration. They include withdrawing child benefit from households earning more than £50,000. That is a fair way to make savings, so we can meet our targets to cut the deficit.
	We are also taking steps to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share too. The Budget package ensures that the wealthiest will pay five times more than the cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax. The introduction of a new higher rate of stamp duty land tax of 7% on properties sold for more than £2 million will raise over £1 billion in the next five years. At the same time, this Government are also tackling avoidance, as demonstrated in the Bill. The new SDLT enveloping entry charge rate of 15% will deter those seeking to put their high-value property into corporate structures to avoid tax. Also, debt buy-back measures will raise over £500 million from banks that try to avoid paying the tax due, and the introduction of the UK-Switzerland agreement will ensure we can address the tax loss from those who put their money into Swiss banks to evade tax.
	There has been extensive scrutiny of this Bill, including about 44 hours in Public Bill Committee. From looking at some of the new clauses tabled for today, I am happy to see that the Opposition continue to stick to their same theme on this Bill, which is to ask for reports, rather than focusing on policies. We have seen 34 Opposition-requested reports over the last 10 weeks, but no real policy alternatives. Yesterday, we were discussing Groucho Marx, and I wonder if the Opposition ever needed to be reminded of the quote:
	“The problem with doing nothing is that you never know when you are finished.”
	In order to make progress with Government business in good time, we agreed with the Opposition, through the usual channels, to programme parts of this Bill.
	It is a delight to see my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) once again in his usual place. As he rightly said yesterday, this legislation is the body, soul and guts of this Budget.
	I thank all who participated in Committee and on Report.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose —

David Gauke: I will even welcome a contribution from the hon. Lady—for the first time today, I think.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is very generous of the Minister to give way. Would he also like to reflect on the comment made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that a good government is one that takes tough decisions and stick to them? Does the Minister think that could be said in respect of their handling of this Bill?

David Gauke: This Government have taken tough decisions to bring the deficit down, and we are sticking to that plan even though some Opposition Members would rather give up on deficit reduction and continue to borrow in the same unsustainable way that we borrowed up until 2010. This Government remain determined to stick to that plan. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to underline that point.
	I thank all those who have been involved in every stage of this Bill, including both Front Benchers and Back Benchers engaged in this matter, not to mention various others. I wish briefly to mention a couple of Treasury officials. First, I congratulate Mr Edward Troup, who, as announced earlier this week, has accepted the post of tax assurance commissioner and second permanent secretary at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His wealth of experience and enthusiasm will be a great asset for HMRC, but a sad loss to the Treasury. I also thank Jamie Miller, who has been the Bill manager for this Bill, and indeed has served on the past six Bills over the past four years. Despite that, he has remained remarkably cheerful, notwithstanding the provocation that all of us have given on that front.
	In conclusion, this is a good Bill that builds a stronger and more balanced economy. It will strengthen the UK, making us more competitive and more ready to face the challenges ahead, and I commend it to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and others for serving on the Public Bill Committee with me over the past several weeks. I also thank our able Chairs for supervising us during that process and the Commons Clerks for their advice and assistance throughout the process in Committee and in the House.
	The Bill has been on quite a journey since it was first presented to the House just a few months ago. I fear that the Exchequer Secretary spoke too soon last December when he announced that
	“the Government’s more open, predictable and simple approach to tax policy making is working well.”
	He said that by publishing tax legislation in draft form first,
	“we are giving greater certainty and stability to taxpayers and businesses”.
	I do not think that taxpayers and businesses, or indeed Members of this House, realised that the Finance Bill itself was still only a draft when it was published in March. This Finance Bill has been through so many stages of crossing out and rewriting that it would have been easier for the Government to have scrapped it and started again, perhaps with some measures that would have supported jobs and growth.
	As we have heard throughout the Committee and Report stages, the Budget has been a total and utter shambles. When we first saw this Bill back in March, it contained provisions to raise VAT on hot food, on static caravans and on improvements to listed buildings.

Alan Reid: What was in the Budget back in March was a consultation exercise on VAT on static caravans and so on. I am glad that after that exercise the Government listened and amended their proposals, but it was a consultation. This Government, unlike the previous one, listen to what people say in consultations.

Rachel Reeves: That is the first time I have heard a Finance Bill being called a consultation—I do not even know where to start.
	The Budget in March also included a 3p rise in fuel duty in August and limits on charitable donations. All this was necessary, we were told, to deal with the deficit. Yet the Bill before us, as we reach Third Reading, contains none of those measures. We have had a series of abrupt reversals that, according to one estimate, will cost the Exchequer nearly £700 million.
	Opposition Members argued that these measures were misconceived from the start, and that adding to the costs faced by families and small business at this time would make it even harder for our economy to climb out of the recession that this Government have dug us into. But it must be a matter of regret that so much uncertainty and confusion has been created for those affected, doing real damage to businesses, charities, pensioners and families, and that at a time of tight public finances the Government’s financial and fiscal planning seems to be in such disarray, with no one at all clear what the Government’s priorities actually are.
	Despite the Government’s belated change of heart on those matters, the Bill remains a deeply flawed, unfair and utterly inadequate response to the problems facing our country today and that is why the Opposition will vote against it this evening. The Bill still offends against the most basic principles of fairness by giving priority to a reckless and irresponsible tax cut worth tens of thousands of pounds for a few thousand millionaires while at the same time asking millions of ordinary people who are already under pressure from rising prices, falling wages and cuts to tax credits and benefits to make further sacrifices and endure further hardship.
	The Bill breaks a promise that the Chancellor made in the Budget last year to Britain’s pensioners that their age-related allowance would rise in line with inflation for the rest of this Parliament and instead imposes a stealth tax that will hit 4.5 million people over the age of 65, all of whom live on modest pension savings. The Bill is breaking the principle of universal child benefit and still means that one-earner families will lose thousands of pounds a year while a two-earner family on almost twice as much will keep all their benefit. It is a botched, half-baked measure dreamt up for a party conference speech but the measures are described by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as a “policy disaster” that are
	“in danger of becoming a practical disaster when they come into effect”.
	We have raised a number of other concerns about the Bill, such as the controlled foreign companies changes and the impact that they will have on developing countries. What is most wrong with the Bill, however, is that it represents a massive missed opportunity to end the recession and get our economy working for ordinary working families, pensioners, businesses and young people. It could have been a Bill that took the tough decisions necessary to ensure that those who could make a fair contribution to deficit reduction did so, so that those hit hardest by the current crisis were not put under even more pressure.
	It could have been a Bill that cut VAT, giving immediate relief to hard-pressed families and giving our economy the stimulus it needs to get growth under way again and to make unemployment fall. It could have been a Bill that redirected money wasted on excessive bank bonuses and put those resources to better use, helping young people get back to work and constructing new affordable homes.

Edward Leigh: Where would the money have come from?

Rachel Reeves: The Government are borrowing £150 billion more. That is the cost of the Government’s failed economic policies. The reality is that with more people out of work claiming benefits and fewer people in work paying taxes, Government borrowing is higher and not lower.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but there is a little problem with her maths. She is accusing Her Majesty’s Government of spending £150 billion more and then wants to spend umpteen billions on top of that on a VAT cut. There is absolutely no sense in that.

Rachel Reeves: We have seen that this Government’s plan has failed, as unemployment remains far too high, with a million young people out of work. It has failed, and the economy is back in recession—we are one of only two countries in the G20 that are in recession—and the Government are borrowing more. In fact, in the first two quarters of this financial year, the Government are borrowing £4 billion more than they were last year. Their plan has failed and it is time to try an alternative that gets the economy moving again and that gets people back to work and paying taxes so that the economy can grow and the deficit can be brought down sustainably.
	We have proposed a bank bonus tax because we think that it is right that those people with the broadest shoulders should pay a little more. On the day that Bob Diamond has resigned after taking £100 million of bonuses in just a few years, would it not have been far better tonight if we had supported the bank bonus tax and used that money to fund a programme of youth jobs to get our economy working again?
	We could have used the Budget and the Government could have used the Finance Bill properly to accelerate infrastructure investment to help the struggling construction industry and to create much needed jobs in our economy. Instead, we have a Bill that will go down in history as a monument to this Government’s incompetence, complacency and inability to grasp that what the current economic situation demands is a Government who stand up for ordinary working people. The Bill fails on fairness and asks millions to pay more so that millionaires can pay less. It fails to address the real challenges that this country faces—a recession made in Downing street and a Government with no plan to get us out of it.

Stephen Williams: Before I turn to the broad sweep of the Bill, I want to mention again clause 180, to which the Minister referred in his winding-up speech in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). Many of us will have been written to by a coalition of charities such as Christian Aid and ActionAid, with which I have been working closely on the effects of the clause. The reason for that concern is felt internationally. The OECD has estimated that developing countries lose three times the amount of aid that they receive from developed countries through tax avoidance in their own countries.
	In 2011, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD came together and said that the G20 countries have an obligation to ensure the smooth running of the international tax system. It was therefore appropriate for G20 countries to undertake spill-over analyses of proposed changes to their own tax systems and the possible impact of those changes on the fiscal circumstances of developing countries.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to explain to the House why, if he is so passionate about the issue, he withdrew his amendment in Committee and failed to vote for ours?

Stephen Williams: If the hon. Lady was so interested, she could have studied the Hansard record of the debate. The purpose of my amendment at that stage of the Bill was to probe the intentions of the Government and to get on the record statements from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Treasury and the Department for International Development were going to work more closely together. The hon. Lady’s party made it clear that it would not support my amendment in order not to hold up that controlled foreign companies change going through. I suggest that she has a word with her Front-Bench team.
	I move on to new clause 6, which I tabled. Because of the length of time spent once again discussing the bank bonus levy and Labour’s five-point plan, we did not get to it this evening. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to think about why that was the case. New clause 6 called
	for joined-up working between the Treasury and the Department for International Development. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, I and many other hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords were in Committee Room 14 this morning to listen to President Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Irish President Mary Robinson, three of the Elders, who were talking about human rights and in particular developing nations. They specifically praised the record of this Government as the first major Government in the world to reach the 0.7% target for overseas aid. I urge upon my colleagues in Government again that we build upon that achievement by making sure that our aid is well spent and raises the capacity of overseas Governments to develop their own tax collection capability so that they are not so dependent on us in the future.
	As others wish to speak, I turn to the wider measures in the Bill. For those of us who have been on the entire journey, it has been a long trip from the Budget to Second Reading, to Committee of the whole House, to 18 sittings of the Committee, and to the past two days. Some of the things that were there at the start did not make it all the way through to the end. Maybe somewhere in Cornwall there is someone sitting in a caravan, eating a pasty washed down by sports drinks, filling in a gift aid form, perhaps to a church restoration fund. Such a person ought to be happy that this Government listen.
	Some things, to be fair, were consistent all the way through that process. We heard them again this evening from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—Labour’s five-point plan. As a boy, I was brought up to go to Sunday school, so I cannot help but be reminded of the parable of the feeding of the 5,000; they start off with such a small amount and expect it to achieve so many things, but without the benefit of miraculous intervention.
	When all these measures are long forgotten, having simply been about tens of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds, it is the really significant measures in the Budget, which involve billions of pounds, that will be remembered in the sweep of history. The most significant of those is the progress towards raising the income tax threshold towards £10,000. My party, the Liberal Democrats, can take particular pleasure in the fact that the Budget and the Finance Act, as the Bill is soon to become, set us off towards another milestone on the route to achieving the £10,000 tax-free threshold. It will already lift 800,000 people out of income tax, and it will do so for 1.1 million people over the coming year and 2 million next year, allowing more people to retain the benefits of their work. We also saw in the Budget the introduction of effective wealth taxes, new rates of stamp duty, a new clampdown on stamp duty avoidance, something the previous Government shirked on many occasions, and new restrictions on reliefs against tax.
	When the history of this Government and this Budget is written, it is the rise in the threshold to £10,000 that will be long remembered when all the ephemera we have been dealing with, and which Opposition Members have been so keen to raise over the past 12 weeks, are long forgotten. The raising of the threshold, which will lift people out of taxation, is the big issue that will be remembered for many years to come.

Jim Shannon: I know that on Third Reading we cannot debate the issues again, but I want to ask a quick question on a commitment the Government gave last year during a debate in which recognition of marriage in the tax system was discussed. They gave a commitment to bring in the necessary changes to introduce transferable allowances, the need for which is urgent. I would like to remind the Government of their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system and press the Minister to respond on the matter. The Prime Minister said:
	“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”
	I am sure that the Minister will be able to reaffirm that. The Prime Minister continued:
	“It’s something we would like to do in this parliament”.
	As he is the Prime Minister of the coalition, I am sure we can look forward to a commitment on that at some time in the future.
	The Government have made a number of U-turns, or J-turns, as some Members called them—or, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) called them, recalibrations. It does not matter what we call them, so long as they are done for the right reasons, and the Government’s U-turns so far have been for the right reasons and we welcome them.
	However, perhaps it is now time to have a commitment from the Government on transferable allowances. If the Minister is unable to tell us exactly when the Government will introduce legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system, will he provide clarity on a different but related point? Recognition of marriage in the tax system will require HMRC to make various operational changes, particularly in the IT systems. Can he reassure us that this preparatory work is already under way so that when the Government bring forward legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system there is no further delay? If he cannot do so tonight, will he make it an urgent priority to make a statement to the House setting out the time that will be required to change the IT systems and announce that he has instructed that work to begin in readiness for the introduction of the transferable allowance legislation?

Bill Esterson: When listening to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), I was reminded of the rather depressing speeches and interventions from some of his Tory colleagues in our previous debates on youth unemployment and the bank bonus tax, who showed very clearly that they do not live in the real world. They have no idea of the impact on young people of the chronic levels of unemployment they now face or the depressing reality that this is a repeat of what happened under the Tories in the ’80s and ’90s.
	The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned Bob Diamond’s £100 million in bonuses, which, under the real jobs guarantee scheme, would create 25,000 jobs for young people. I wonder whether Government Members consider that a better use of £100 million in bankers’ bonuses, because I certainly do.
	We have already seen new schemes from the Government which are depressingly familiar; they remind me of the youth opportunities programme and its successor, the youth training scheme, in the early ’80s, and of how benefits were withdrawn from young people during those years when there were no jobs. There are no jobs for young people in my constituency or in many parts of the country.

Heather Wheeler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: I will always give way to a fellow member of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Heather Wheeler: Why is it that in South Derbyshire the number of apprentices has gone up by 80%, when the hon. Gentleman says that there are no jobs for young people? What is going on in his constituency that is not happening in South Derbyshire?

Bill Esterson: People in the hon. Lady’s part of the world must be incredibly lucky, because it must be the only place in the country where that is the case.
	In reality, every Member knows that the youth unemployment figure has gone over the 1 million mark; that is a fact which everyone here accepts.

Richard Graham: rose —

Bill Esterson: I ask the hon. Gentleman, when he intervenes, to explain why one of this Government’s first acts was to scrap the successful future jobs fund, which the previous Government introduced and Members who are now on the Treasury Bench said they would keep.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, after some careful thought. In answer to his question, in my constituency the biggest difficulty with the future jobs fund was that, first, the placements were not real jobs but national service, because they were from the Government or charities; and, secondly, they had no future. They did not, therefore, meet even the definition of their own title: future jobs fund.
	The hon. Gentleman has heard about the situation in South Derbyshire. The situation in Gloucestershire is that the number of apprenticeships has risen massively over the past three years and has continued to go up by 20% over the past year, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 150 people every month for the past three months. It is not perfect, but things are getting better.

Bill Esterson: I cannot decide which of those 14 questions to answer, but as a former banker the hon. Gentleman is in a good position to comment on the financial crisis, which was caused by some of his former colleagues. What he says gives no comfort. He mentions national service, and I went back to the ’80s and ’90s, but he has gone back far further than that, to something that really did not solve any problems for young people.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful—

Nigel Evans: More briefly this time, Mr Graham.

Richard Graham: I shall be very brief, I promise. I have a specific suggestion for the hon. Gentleman—in two questions. First, how many jobs fairs has he organised in his constituency? Secondly, how many apprenticeships have been started in his constituency?

Bill Esterson: I speak to people in my constituency all the time, and they tell me just how hard it is to find jobs. I have employed somebody who was on the future jobs fund, and they have been extremely successful, but people who have been out of work for more than six months, whether they have left school, college or graduated from university, find it almost impossible to get jobs.
	The reality is that, in this situation, just as in previous decades under previous Conservative Governments, employers are already turning to people who have just left school or college or just graduated; they are not looking at people who have been out of work for a long period. The depressing reality is that we will see another generation of young people consigned to the scrapheap unless this Government take the action that the Labour party proposes in repeating the bankers’ bonus tax.

Julie Hilling: I wonder whether my hon. Friend, like me, sees a constant stream of young and older people coming to his constituency surgeries desperate for work. Does he agree that the future jobs fund provided something better than having to work in a supermarket for nothing?

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend gained vast experience of dealing with young people before coming to Parliament, and she has been a strong advocate for them ever since. Her experience is very similar to mine. It is absolutely disgraceful that we have Ministers sitting there laughing at what is happening to young people up and down this country, who cannot get jobs because we have a Government who entered office when the economy was growing strongly—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—despite a global economic downturn and a global economic and financial crisis caused by the friends of people like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

Gordon Birtwistle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: Let us hear what the Lib Dems have to say for themselves.

Gordon Birtwistle: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the large number of young people who have come from abroad and now have jobs in the UK?

Bill Esterson: I am not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can agree with me that what we need is action from this Government—action to help young people find jobs.
	The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer here, mentioned several times the fact that the banks are not lending and said that that is the problem, but he forgot to say that the reason the banks are not lending is that they have no confidence in this Government—the Government who have pushed us back into a double-dip recession so that we are now one of only two countries in Europe in that position, the other being Italy. That lack of confidence is why banks would rather shore up their own position—and, of course, pay exorbitant bonuses to their top executives.
	The banks are not lending to the small businesses that need the money to create the jobs and drive the growth that is needed. Unless the banks start to do that, the Government need to step in.
	That is why the proposal from Labour is so important. It is why repeating the bankers’ bonus tax would make so much difference to young people and to this country as a whole. But what did we get from this Government? The cut in the 50p tax rate. Three hundred thousand of the wealthiest people in the country will benefit from a tax cut paid for by the rest of us, particularly the poorest and pensioners through the granny tax. That is the reality of the Government’s proposal, which they are pushing through tonight. That is why we should oppose the Bill.
	What I expected was an end to the sort of heckling we have heard from Ministers, who clearly enjoy the prospect of young people being out of work. I would like to think that that is not what they really think. I had hoped for a degree of fairness from the Government—perhaps I was being unreasonably optimistic. There is nothing fair in 300,000 of the wealthiest—

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman keeps coming back for more—I am intrigued.

Alan Reid: The fair thing in the Budget is that the personal allowance for income tax is being raised by a record amount, taking a large number of low-paid people out of paying tax altogether and giving a tax cut to many more. That is what makes this Budget fair.

Bill Esterson: If it were true that it helps the poorest people in our society, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have a point, but it does not help many of the very poorest and it does not help those young people I was talking about who cannot find a job because the Government will not take action and because they cut the future jobs fund when they first came into office.
	What we really needed from this Government was a Budget of fairness. Instead, we got that tax cut. What they should be doing is repeating Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax, which raised £3.5 billion—[ Interruption. ] Government Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which they themselves set up. They are even questioning their own organisation’s figures. That £3.5 billion was nearly twice as much as the £1.8 billion raised by the bank levy. The bank levy is a start, but the Government could repeat the bank bonus tax and use the money to get young people back to work and the housing industry going. The temporary VAT cut would help small businesses that cannot get loans from the banks.
	I know that people want to get home. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Always happy to oblige. We have had a Budget for the wealthiest in our society. The Bill gives help to the top 300,000 earners, but does nothing for young people or those out of work.

Sheila Gilmore: During the various debates on the Bill, there have been references to the 1980s and the 1970s. Does my hon. Friend agree that there were probably
	comments like the ones we heard tonight in the 1930s, when people in the south of England said that there was no depression?

Bill Esterson: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments —[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) would like to make an intervention, I will happily take it.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are seeing a repeat of what happened in the ’30s, and we have none of the policies necessary to get us out of this situation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Esterson: No, I am not going to take any more interventions; the hon. Gentleman can sit down.
	We should be seeing the investment from the bank bonus tax and a temporary cut in VAT. The Bill—[Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. Please—I cannot hear Mr Esterson speak.

Bill Esterson: The Bill does nothing to help grow the economy or get us out of the problems we face. The House should vote against it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 308, Noes 233.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Nigel Evans: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved.
	That the draft Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Code of Practice for the Video Recording with Sound of Post-Charge Questioning) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved.
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved.

Police

That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Education

That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Mr Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 8 to 12 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.

Energy Conservation

That the draft Green Deal (Energy Efficiency Improvements) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.
	That the draft Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgment, Redress etc.) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.
	That the draft Green Deal (Qualifying Energy Improvements) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.

Electricity

That the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 13 June, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Management: Annual Audit

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14879/11 and Addenda 1 to 3, relating to the Commission Report on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests: Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2010, together with two unnumbered Reports from the European Court of Auditors dated 10 November 2011, relating to the Annual Report on the Activities Funded by the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds in the financial year 2010, and the Annual Report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2010; regrets that the EU budget has been given a qualified audit by the EU oversight body the Court of Auditors every year for the past 17 years; agrees that, in these challenging economic times, the same high standards applied to national budgets should be applied to the EU budget, especially as national taxpayers fund the EU budget; supports the Government’s decision to, for the first time, oppose signing off the EU budget earlier this year; and encourages the Government to continue to call for important and urgent improvements to the quality of EU financial management.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

VIOLENCE AGAINST HEALTH WORKERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

Nicholas Dakin: Our national health service employs more than 1.7 million people. Of those, just under half are clinically qualified, including 120,000 hospital doctors, 40,000 general practitioners, 400,000 nurses and 25,000 ambulance staff, as well as an army of other health care workers. Only the Wal-Mart supermarket chain, Indian Railways and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army directly employ more people.
	On average, our health service deals with 1 million patients every 36 hours. That is about 500 people a minute or eight people a second. As those figures suggest, the size and volume of the NHS means that literally millions of interactions between patients and staff occur every single day. In the vast majority of cases, these interactions are positive and result in successful outcomes for patients and staff alike, which is why, simply put, the NHS is one of the best health care models on the planet. But sadly, things sometimes go wrong for patients and badly wrong for staff. The superb staff who provide such sterling service to the public can find themselves the victims of violence while working on our behalf to provide those very services. The purpose of this debate is to highlight this wrong and seek support from the Government for righting it.
	The NHS management service’s latest statistics reveal more than 150 reported physical assaults on health care staff per day—and that is before verbal assault is taken into consideration. According to the latest 2010-11 NHS survey, 7% of NHS staff had been victims of assault in the previous 12 months. The Royal College of Nursing’s research reveals further troubling statistics, with almost 11% of those surveyed having been assaulted at work in the previous two years and more than 60% of all respondents having suffered verbal abuse at work. Indeed, one respondent commented that
	“verbal abuse seems to just be accepted as part of our work”.
	That is totally indefensible.
	In Northern Lincolnshire and Goole hospital trust, which serves the Scunthorpe area, there were 13.1 assaults per 1,000 members of staff in 2009-10. Although that figure is below the national yearly average of 16.8 per 1,000, it is still far too high. One assault against any person simply trying to do their job in any profession, never mind people who routinely save lives every day, is completely unacceptable.
	Two weeks ago, I joined a local ambulance crew for five hours of their 12-hour shift, and I was hugely impressed by the professionalism of the paramedic team and the staff at Scunthorpe general’s accident and emergency department. Patients were treated with great skill, care and dignity, which is exactly as it should be, but I was shocked to learn that the fantastic paramedic I was with had gone to a house call about a year ago and was seriously assaulted by the man he had gone to help. He was chased around the house by the man, who violently and persistently assaulted him. The assault was so bad that it resulted in his being off work for six months.
	I received today this e-mail from a staff nurse at Scunthorpe general hospital:
	“I understand that you are taking part in an adjournment debate tonight on the above subject. I was assaulted by a patient in January this year. With colleagues I went to clean up a patient that…had attacked a nurse earlier in the day and no one felt able to approach him since. I was subjected to a violent attack which meant I was on sick leave for three months. I have had intensive physiotherapy and still attend physio regularly. I suffered a needlestick injury while trying to sedate the patient and will be tested for blood borne viruses in the next few weeks. During the time I was off work and, for some time since, I have been in constant pain, I had limited use of my right arm and restricted movement of my neck. I could not hold a pen to write or brush my teeth. Everyday tasks took hours and I became depressed and withdrawn. Even now I am unable to perform all my duties as a nurse. Yet, mine was not a serious injury. I have made considerable improvement but will always have some level of pain and restriction of movement.”
	She goes on to thank us for raising this issue in Parliament.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the Chamber, and I wish to associate myself with his comments. In Northern Ireland, including in my constituency and in particular the Ulster hospital, there have been several attacks on accident and emergency personnel and ambulances. It is not specific to Scunthorpe but happens across the UK. Would better co-ordination between the hospital authorities, ambulance and emergency personnel and the police be a way of addressing some of these issues?

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He reminds us that, sadly, the problem affects people across the nations of the United Kingdom. I will come to the issue he raises later, but I want now to quote the final comments of the nurse who wrote to me:
	“You can have no idea what it means to have this problem recognised and debated. I do not expect to be compensated in monetary terms for the pain I have suffered or the possibility that I may not be able to work to retirement age but I do want to see measures put in place to effectively protect staff who are expected to deal with difficult and violent patients.”
	The costs of such assaults are multi-fold. There is the cost to the NHS of care for the victim, the cost to the NHS of the health worker’s absence from work and the possible loss of an employee if recovery is not complete. Added to that is the potentially devastating impact on the health worker’s own health and well-being, with further strain on family, friends and the wider community. I would like to pay tribute to all the fantastic people working in the NHS, including the people and organisations working hard to prevent such violence from taking place against health workers. Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust has launched an e-petition to heighten public awareness of the issue. The fact that the trust has recognised it in this way is to be applauded, but there is much more to be done. That is why the trust’s partnership approach, working with Unison and others to find ways of practically addressing the issue, is to be welcomed.
	NHS Employers—part of the partnership for occupational safety and health in health care—is also actively involved in raising the issue of violence and aggression against staff, and is looking at how it can be managed, working hard to help create healthy and productive workplaces.
	Work is also under way—led by NHS Protect, with input from the Royal College of Nursing and others—to look at preventing and managing physical assaults on staff which result from a patient’s underlying medical condition, such as dementia. Many physical assaults result from a patient’s underlying clinical condition, but rather than ignoring this, steps can be taken to reduce the risks. Work to take these positive initiatives forward needs to be systematically supported and funded if it is to bring real change and reduce the risk to health workers from such patients.
	All these initiatives are positive and to be welcomed. However, I want to highlight a number of concerns raised with me by the Royal College of Nursing, Unison and others. I am keen for the Minister—who I know is committed to ensuring that the Government do their best in this area—to say in his response what practical steps the Government are taking to address those concerns. The Government have funded work by the Design Council with a limited number of A and E units to reduce violence through design solutions. That is to be welcomed. How will the work be evaluated, and how will any improvements to the safety of staff and patients in such units be shared and implemented more widely? With the end of Secretary of State directions, which required NHS trusts to have measures in place to protect staff, how will it be possible to ensure that all provider services meet standards similar to those currently set under Secretary of State directions? They include access to a local security management specialist, training on conflict resolution, central reporting of physical assaults and a requirement to follow policies and guidance—for example, lone working guidance—published by NHS Protect.
	Lone working nurses and health care workers absolutely need protection. They often form an invisible work force. Many health workers already work alone with limited, if any, back-up or support. The quite proper policy direction of providing more services in the community means that more health workers are likely to find themselves in potentially vulnerable situations as sole workers. How will Government ensure that there are systems in place to minimise risk and protect the work force?
	Full consideration needs to be given to the possible impact of changes in health care delivery combined with efficiency savings on the likelihood of risk of violence against staff. In particular, a risk assessment of the impact of closing units, lengthening A and E waiting times and staff shortages needs to be undertaken and the effects mitigated. That needs to be recognised. In this climate of cost-cutting and austerity, how can we be certain that such measures will be put in place to reduce the risks to staff? Staff who report incidents need more support from their employers and the police. They need feedback after they have reported incidents, and they need to know what action is being taken to prevent any reoccurrence. Lack of feedback and support can lead to under-reporting of incidents and reduced morale.
	I welcome the fact that pressure from Unison has resulted in a change to the code for Crown prosecutors to increase the number of prosecutions for assaults on public servants. The closer working relationship between NHS local security management specialists and trade union safety representatives has been a positive development. NHS Protect has also agreed protocols with the police and
	the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the memorandum of understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police are committed to progressing all cases of violence and abuse against NHS staff as a priority. The Crown Prosecution Service has also made a commitment to
	“work with the police to ensure that these cases are treated with the seriousness that they deserve and encourage a robust charging policy”.
	It is crucial that that should lead to a more consistent approach by police forces to following up the perpetrators of either physical or verbal abuse. RCN research suggests that police follow-ups are sometimes inconsistent around the country. Some forces follow up complaints robustly and work closely with local hospitals, but others appear reluctant to get involved in procedures, especially when the incident involves a patient with an underlying mental health condition. Such incidents in particular need more close examination, as a significant number of physical assaults on health workers are by patients with underlying mental health problems. How can the Government ensure that the memorandum of understanding between ACPO, the CPS and NHS Protect will be consistently and effectively implemented?
	The reporting and investigation of assaults also needs to be properly addressed. According to the RCN survey, although only about 11% had suffered physical abuse at work, 74% of the incidents they recalled were never reported to the police. Staff need to be confident that they will be supported by their employers and the police. They need to be given the confidence always to report assaults. There needs to be a culture of trust that, when reported, such assaults will be taken seriously and fully investigated, with proper support given to the victims. Proper feedback and support in the reporting process will help to keep up morale in the NHS work force and reassure staff that they should not expect to be put in danger while carrying out their duties on behalf of all of us.
	In this age of austerity, budgets are being squeezed, and organisations that protect workers are being asked to do important jobs with a lot less funding. For example, the Health and Safety Executive, which plays an important role in keeping people safe at work, has had its work force reduced by a third in the last 10 years, with the number of inspections that it carries out falling from 75,000 to 23,000 a year. That could lead to the real danger of worker safety being jeopardised, which makes it even more important for NHS employers to take completely seriously the need to protect their work force and minimise the risk of attack from patients. Health and safety is not red tape; health and safety saves lives.
	Worryingly, the cuts in NHS and local authority budgets and in the Health and Safety Executive are in danger of combining with the confusion caused by the NHS reforms to cause local security management specialists to become increasingly reliant on safety representatives to help them to identify those work areas in which NHS staff will be most at risk. Many local security management specialists used to work with primary care trusts. With the abolition of PCTs, there is a possible danger of confusion and uncertainty about their role in the workplaces that they cover. How will the Government ensure that the risk inherent in the changes does not lead to more health care workers finding themselves in situations in which their personal safety is put at risk?
	Every single person should be able to go to work without the fear of physical harm. I strongly back Unison’s calls for a zero-tolerance approach to safeguarding NHS staff. Everyone needs to work together with a clear and persistent focus to make sure that all staff can carry out their work free from the fear and the threat of physical or verbal assault. When individuals are found guilty of attacks on health care workers, that should inform the sentencing and be treated with the utmost seriousness.
	As Julian Corlett, Unison branch secretary for Scunthorpe general hospital, wrote to me:
	“Violence directed at health workers is never acceptable and is not part of the contract of employment. We must dispel the myth that violence in the NHS is inevitable, or unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable. It therefore remains our key objective to see a significant and sustained reduction in the number of violent incidents directed at NHS staffs across the country, with more prosecutions and severe sanctions for those perpetrating such violence. There has to be the presumption that those committing these offences are more likely to face prosecution than not if we are to see sustained reductions in the figures anytime soon.”
	Julian speaks from experience with great passion and clarity; his words will echo round this Chamber and in the world outside it. We should be vigilant and proactive in ensuring the safety of those who work within the NHS. In the words of the children’s laureate, Michael Rosen, on the 60th anniversary of the NHS, we must do all we can to protect the
	“hands that touch us first...and the hands that touch us last”.

Simon Burns: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate on violence against health care staff. It is an issue that every Member of this House can agree is totally and utterly unacceptable in every instance. I would like to praise the reasoned and measured way in which the hon. Gentleman made his points. I also share with him the disgust about what has happened to some of his constituents who work—day in, day out—on behalf of patients in his constituency. Sadly, this problem is not restricted solely to his constituency, as it applies to all constituencies where, regrettably, acts of violence are directed against NHS staff. I can assure him that this Government have zero tolerance of that sort of treatment —physical or verbal—against people who work in our NHS on behalf of patients.
	Violence against health care workers can never be tolerated. Nobody should expect to suffer violence at work. This is especially the case for those who are committed to caring for others. Clearly, the human cost alone makes it unacceptable; although the physical effects may be transient, the deeper emotional scars can often last a lifetime. Beyond the effect on the individual, too, there are other factors: the disruption to services caused by the incident and its aftermath; the impact on staff welfare, sickness absence, recruitment and retention and the cost of additional security, all of which divert resources, human and financial, away from providing health care.
	In short, the cost to the NHS of violence is huge and it affects us all. I am determined that we should do all we can to prevent violence against health care staff and to take the toughest possible action when violence does occur to ensure that those responsible are held accountable
	for their actions. From the outset, the Government have been committed to taking action to tackle the problem of violence. We have encouraged NHS organisations to work more closely with their local police forces to clamp down on anyone who is aggressive or abusive to staff—and while we may have made progress, there is still a long way to go.
	In 2010-11, the latest year for which figures are available, there were almost 58,000 reported physical assaults on members of NHS staff. Hon. Members are able to consult the reported figures for each health body, as these are placed in the Library each year. In the majority of those assaults—some 40,000—the patient’s medical condition was a factor. This means the culpability of the assailant may have been in question or that a legal sanction may not have been appropriate. However, that still leaves some 18,000 cases in which the assailant’s medical condition was not a factor. While this number is smaller than for the previous year, it is nowhere near small enough: 18,000 is 18,000 too many. We are committed to taking whatever further action is required. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about sanctions and convictions. I can tell him that sanctions against offenders, ranging from cautions to fines to imprisonment, have increased—there was a 24% increase in 2010-11—but the number is still not high enough.
	We are taking action in a number of ways. Some are new, while others have succeeded in the past and we have therefore continued to support them. Of course, the main priority is to prevent violence by protecting staff and managing high-risk situations before they escalate. NHS Protect, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is the body that leads the work to tackle crime throughout the health service. It has identified violence against staff as one of its key priorities for 2012-13, and has developed a work programme aimed primarily at preventing assaults.
	There are trained security management specialists at more than 90% of NHS trusts in England. They are responsible for investigating security breaches, along with the police, and for implementing new systems to protect NHS staff more effectively. NHS Protect supports NHS organisations by providing advice, assistance and best-practice guidance.
	The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduced powers to deal with antisocial behaviour on NHS hospital premises, which enable an authorised person to remove those who are suspected of creating a nuisance or disturbance. A three-year training programme funded by the Department of Health and managed by NHS Protect, which will end in April 2012, has enabled more than more than 600 staff at over 80 hospitals to be trained in the implementation of the Act. They have been empowered to respond to disruption such as foul language and verbal abuse, intimidating gestures, excessive noise in waiting areas or wards, and the obstruction of thoroughfares. Feedback from staff trained by NHS Protect in the use of the Act’s provisions indicates that the powers are working well in practice on the front line, helping to provide a safer environment for NHS patients, staff and visitors.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of design, particularly but not solely in accident and emergency departments. In November last year, I was pleased to be
	able to speak at the launch of a project organised jointly by the Department of Health and the Design Council involving the use of design to reduce violence in A and E departments. Leading experts developed and tested potential solutions and identified areas for action. We are currently in the implementation phase of that project. Early indications are positive, but in order for the impact of the solutions to be fully evaluated, a detailed framework has been generated by the design team to record both quantitative and qualitative data. Those data will generate the evidence base that will formally endorse the concepts, proving their efficiency and their impact on the costs of violence and aggression in A and E departments. The evaluation has not yet finished, but we hope to communicate the results later in the year.
	The Government intend to change the legal framework in respect of antisocial behaviour. One of those changes is designed specifically to tackle antisocial behaviour affecting the NHS. As Members may have noted from the Home Office White Paper that was issued in May this year, we propose that NHS Protect be named as a relevant authority to apply for crime prevention injunctions. That is intended to enable a quicker response to the problem of antisocial behaviour, and to avoid the need for the police or local authorities to apply for injunctions on behalf of an NHS body.
	While much of the work will focus on assaults for which the person committing the act can be held responsible, we will not ignore cases in which a person’s medical condition is a factor in violence, especially as such cases represent the majority of reported physical assaults against NHS staff. NHS Protect is working with a clinically led expert group to develop guidance on the prevention and management of violence in circumstances in which the medical condition of a patient puts staff at greater risk of assault.
	When necessary, we need to challenge the idea that the existence of a particular medical condition is a bar to prosecution. Whenever an assault occurs, an assessment of the assailant's culpability must be made. When assailants cannot be considered legally culpable for their actions, prosecutions cannot be appropriate, but when assessments reveal that people were in control of their actions and knew what they were doing, there should be a presumption that sanctions will be sought. Indeed, there is some clinical opinion that such action can assist in making a person understand the impact of their behaviour, and so affect it in a way that discourages repeated incidents. For action to be taken against offenders, we first need staff to report when they have been subject to violence, either verbal or physical. That staff have confidence in the action that will be taken is paramount in encouraging them to do so, and the role of the local security management specialists is key to that.
	All the initiatives I have mentioned are designed to prevent violence from occurring. We must, however, remain prepared for the times this prevention activity is not as effective as we would like it to be. When violence does occur, we need to ensure that those responsible are held to account.
	To pick up on the valid point the hon. Gentleman made about joint collaboration, NHS Protect has signed a three-way agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, with the stated intention of curbing violence and antisocial
	behaviour in the NHS. This agreement recognises that the police and the CPS are bound by guidance and codes of practice on communications with victims and witnesses, and that employers have a duty to support in every way they can staff who have been victims. This joint-working agreement supports the Government’s commitment to act. NHS Protect will this year be working to translate this national agreement into local protocols for more effective collaboration between the police, the CPS and health bodies in seeking appropriate sanctions for acts of violence. NHS Protect is currently identifying best practice in the management of physical assaults in mental health settings, with a view to issuing specific guidance for that sector. This will include working with the police to take forward prosecutions where it is appropriate to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of how to protect the lone worker. To better protect lone workers, NHS Protect led the delivery of a lone worker alarm service for the NHS. Over 40,000 staff, and more than half of NHS trusts across England, now use this service, which enables a lone worker to signal covertly for help from the emergency services if they find themselves in a dangerous situation. The service also provides a
	system control centre, which enables listening to, and recording of, incidents in case evidence is later needed as part of a prosecution.
	I wholeheartedly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about violence against health care staff. We should always do everything we can to prevent it, and when we cannot prevent it, we should seek the strongest sanctions against those responsible.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House are reassured by my account of the work we are undertaking, and by the Government’s, and my own personal, commitment to tackling this completely unacceptable problem.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman. He rightly holds this subject very close to his heart. The Government share his concern, and we are determined to do all we can to minimise the cowardly, dastardly and disgusting attacks on people who do so much to help the frail, the vulnerable and the sick in this country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.